Please note the following, between the top 3 candidates Hillary is the only one who loses to Giuliani, yet she is getting record contributions while Republicans are having total record low donations. They are contributing to Hilary so that she would be the Dem's candidate thereby losing to Giuliani who will be our next president.
In a straw poll effort amongst thousands a couple of weeks ago, Edwards wins Texas by a large margin.

There are games being played, and Republicans are pushing Clinton to be the frontrunner.

Please note in Missouri:

Source: SurveyUSA / KCTV-TV
Methodology: Telephone interviews with at least 499 registered Missouri voters, conducted from Sept. 14 to Sept. 16, 2007. Margin of error is 4.4 per cent.

A few questions now about the next election. If there were an election for president of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were (the following) who would you vote for?

Rudy Giuliani (R) 42% - 47% John Edwards (D)
Fred Thompson (R) 40% - 50% John Edwards (D)
Mitt Romney (R) 32% - 56% John Edwards (D)

Rudy Giuliani (R) 44% - 46% Barack Obama (D)
Fred Thompson (R) 45% - 48% Barack Obama (D)
Mitt Romney (R) 40% - 51% Barack Obama (D)

Rudy Giuliani (R) 48% - 45% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
Fred Thompson (R) 45% - 48% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
Mitt Romney (R) 40% - 51% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)

Daniel David October 3rd, 2007 10:51 am

"Having Bill again connected to The White House would give him a world podium. And, he is one of the most respected and articulate voices we have ever seen to advocate for
the rights and needs of people everywhere"

Everywhere except for the American worker and the middle class in the U.S. Which are BTW the people he was hired to represent.

"Secondly, IF Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I take some comfort in believing that she is at heart just as "liberal" as conservatives say she is. Yes, Dennis Kucinich is better, but, also yes, Mrs. Clinton has a real shot at winning, and Dennis simply does not."

Hillary has no real shot at winning with her high negatives and the high number of people, myself included, that will not vote for her under any circumstances. The Democratic so called elites and the MSM are trying to shove her down our throats.

Lobo Gris

"Talk about no alternatives." (ascrowflies)

There WILL be an alternative: the Green Party will run someone against her, just as hard as we can. Unlike the Democrats, we don't yet know who that will be; we are searching for the best possible candidate. One possibility is Cynthia McKinney; another, of course, is Ralph Nader, if he isn't too worn out to run again (I wouldn't blame him.)

Keep an eye on www.GPUS.org for further announcements.

zoya:

Fact is, we do have a candidate that fits your profile, and his name is Kucinich. But, this is America, and voting one's conscience goes against everything we have been propagated to believe is democratic. It's very unfortunate, but true. Be happy you are not American at this sad time in our history.

rickarando: I beg to differ with you on the write-in ballot. Ms Clinton is a corporatist, a war-monger, and a puppet of the Israeli lobby. And a hypocrite! Her voting record speaks for itself. She came from a republican family and is still sympathetic with their agenda and is a Bush/Cheney supporter, contrary to campaign propaganda.

If the American people have degenerated so much since the 2000 election, and prefer to keep in place the master plan, then this nation is finished. With the help of the Democratic Party, the Republican agenda for destroying what the Founding Fathers and the colonists fought for has been happening and the majority of people are unaware.

You say, "she'll be good and the world will applaud".

Who will applaud? Iraqi people? Iranians? Afghans? Maybe China, Walmart, and the 'death and destruction' industry, aka, the military-industrial-christian-zionist- fascist supporters of Clinton.

rickerando 10/3 4:57a,

Thanks for post. I, too, think Hillary CAN be "good."

Aafke Janssen (10/2) asks (me) above, "if you don't like Democrats all that much" (and I don't), "what's up with battling for Billary"?

I like the "Billary" word, by the way. Having Bill again connected to The White House would give him a world podium. And, he is one of the most respected and articulate voices we have ever seen to advocate for
the rights and needs of people everywhere. The world knows this. Have you ever considered that when G.W Bush leaves office he is going to continue speaking out for years to come? He, too, is articulate, in an unsophisticated way. (That's how he got elected.) And I, for one, would like Bill Clinton to be the dominating voice among ex-presidents, advocating for people while G. Bush stays busy advocating for corporations. Hillary as President would give us that Bill over George advantage.

Secondly, IF Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I take some comfort in believing that she is at heart just as "liberal" as conservatives say she is. Yes, Dennis Kucinich is better, but, also yes, Mrs. Clinton has a real shot at winning, and Dennis simply does not.

Daniel David

we've ruined it now, she'll never laugh again. it was kind of fun while it lasted.

I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbedAnd I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

"#dcbeltway said:

"I'm terrified that the powers that be in the DCC and RNC will select for us a Guiliani vs Clinton ticket. If they do that I will leave the country and officially throw in the towel."

I hope you have your passport then because you know that's what the establishment wants. Me I think British Columbia look pretty good...

Little Brother - I loved your post best of all.

The lesser of two evils is still evil, and H. Clinton is part of the military industrial complex that has done so much to destroy our civil rights, damage the world's poor, and increase the gap between the economically advantaged and disadvantaged.

"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it." (Wish I knew who said that.) Therefore, I will vote for Kucinich, whether or not he is on the ballot.

COMarc..."If you want to protect the Constitution, PLEASE DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!"

You've taken "party pounding" and generalization to an art form! Shallow and narrow and always ready to close your mind and bitch!

http://www.dennis4president.com/home/

I think Hilary Clinton is a war mongering corporate whore. Sorry if that sounds "sexist" at this juncture in history I think it's far more important to unite around stopping imperialist resource wars and the globalist corporations rather than worrying about nuances of language from yet another upper class elite politician.

So, I don't know that it's resolved? Is Hillary faking her laugh or is it genuine? Personally, I find everything about her rehearsed and scripted. So, I'm voting that it's a fake. You? http://youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=625

About Hilary's laughing, it sounds like something the electio-meter 5000 spit out. Polls show you need to seem more human, less stiff, there's a 75% probability that the appearance of laughter may cure.

What they will never seem to get is sincerity and likability. Both of which can't be achieved being such eye ball deep players in the D.C. game.

Sorry Hilary you look like a fake and your performance proves it. If you win the as the dem candidate, and lose to the rep candidate, this country will need a big self induced fall before it gets anywhere near what it's supposed to be.

"It's always amusing to hear a feminist refer to Clinton as "Hillary" while referring to the male candidates by their last names. In so doing, you perpetuate the notion that women are the lesser of the genders"

I do believe that introducing her as "Hillary!" was deliberate to make her more personal or familiar, like "Cher" and to differenciate her from the other Clinton. Although Rudy doesn't have that problem, does he?

Missed that footage of her laughing off signing on to Lieberman's latest Zionist war scenario, but watched a replay of it last night.

She needs to be smacked down.

This is a joke:

"If you'll settle for a Republican in 2008 just to teach the Democrats a "lesson", it will be the Republican Supreme Court..."

Have you seen the Democrats really put forth any effort to put the brakes on any of the recent appointees? No, they are always keeping their powder dry for the reallllly big fight just around the corner and over the next hill. They've already proved it as a hollow threat which is why you never hear the looming scenario tossed around anymore.

Hillary laughs about voting to attack Iran. How much more vile and contemptible can this party get, how more obsequiously responsive to the maniacal neo-Con/Zionist war mongers? Bully for Mike Gravel for calling her on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3gQfz8GC0o

Look, Kucinich, Gravel, Paul are not going to get nominated, so STFU about them.
If you do not like Clinton (who WILL get the nomination), and say "I will never vote for her", then just who are you going to vote for? A write-in ballot is tantamount to not voting. Voting for a Republican will amount to more Iraq and possibly Iran. Progressives are caught between a rock and a hard place. Because you do not have a party of your own, you are forced to do only one thing:
VOTE CLINTON.
It is really that simple.

PS: She'll be good.
And the world will applaud.

On my paper ballot next year, I will write in Dennis Kucinich for President. And prefer Mike Gravel as his running mate. You'll see progress for this country and the rest of the world like you haven't seen since FDR.

With Clinton, Obama and the rest, they'll flow with their big corporate sponsers whose plan is to reduce us to serfdom and murder people around the world and plunder their resources for the ruling oligarchy.

This voting for the lesser of two evils is passe, isn't it? Two negatives are still two negatives. How about voting for quality for a change?

jamaz October 2nd, 2007 4:45 pm

"The idea is to vote for Edwards or Kucinich in the primaries. If Hillary still gets the nomination, VOTE for HER in the general election and MAKE her listen to us."

You mean like the Democrats listen to us now? Yeah right

Lobo Gris

" Do some studying of libertarianism before you start spouting ignorant crap about it. It's not even right-wing, never mind far to the right."

Of course libertarians are on the right. They have one enemy, and that is any regulatory agency, of anything. The FDA, the EPA, any agency that tries to make certain that citizens are able to conduct daily life with assurance that they aren't buying tainted food or driving unsafe vehicles -- any sort of supervision of business is an intrusion on freedom. Someone gets hit buy a tornado, they shouldn't be living in a state where tornadoes strike -- that's libertarianism. Get food poisoning? BUy yourself a home testing kit and test everything yourself, because if a government agency does it, it's evil.

That's libertarian 'reasoning' on every issue.

zxvtrp, "I wish Ron Paul & Mike Gravel could be our President and Vice President, in any order !"
I'll second that.

I love Ron Paul. I can't remember feeling that way about any politician ever.

He can bring this country back to the way it used to be a long, long time ago.
____

Ed in Colorado, "The Libertarian Party is far to the right of the Republican Party in that respect."

Wrong. Do some studying of libertarianism before you start spouting ignorant crap about it. It's not even right-wing, never mind far to the right.

We know better than to trust politicians, but damn if Obama wasn't sounding better today! Maybe instead of pulling a Gore, he's decided to turn populist.

I'm terrified that the powers that be in the DCC and RNC will select for us a Guiliani vs Clinton ticket. If they do that I will leave the country and officially throw in the towel.

I think the attraction to Ron Paul is because of sincerity. I too think that a person of principles is better than one who has only power as a principle, but pretends to agree with each group they speak with.

Gravel, Kucinich, and Paul are all trustworthy and as a result will not be elected. They will not even make vice president because todays politicians don't risk fighting corporations and the wealthy elite.

All this said, any of the top Democratic candidates is better than any of the top Republicans. It is also true that the nominee of each party is likely to be the least progressive of the top candidates. I expect Hillary and Romney.

Daniel David, You say that you don't like the Democraps that well, but I've heard you batting for Billary Clinton. So what's up with that?

How can so many of you still be talking about voting for the lesser of 2 evils? Or voting Democrat as if it's better than voting Republican? Or voting Republican to force the Democrats into suddenly understanding something?

Neither party will ever understand anything. Not no more. Firstly, they don't give a rat's ass. And secondly, they are ONE party - the Republicrats or is it the Republicraps? - the Democruds? Oh, never mind. Whatever it is, it sucks.

Daniel David,

"If you, or anybody, can get Kucinich nominated, I promise I'll support and vote for him. Failing that, I still feel we need Obama, Edwards, H. Clinton or anyone else for president who is not a Republican."

I'll vote for Kucinich. If he's not the nominee, I'll write him in.

John Edwards decided to refuse corporate funding, which got a passing mention in the press. Obama made a fine speech on the necessity of abolishing nuclear weapons, which I applaud.

But when crunch time comes, their votes and their decisions belong to the owners of the party, and the owners of the Democratic Party, and we are not the owners nor the masters. Once elected, the will ignore us as much as they're ignoring us in the funding bills, the FISA extensions, the anti-Iran resolution, the anti-MoveOn resolution, and every other bit of legislation, major or minor.

When we sell of little bits of our integrity on the basis that compromise is necessary, and it's better than the alternative, eventually we wind up with exactly what we tried to avoid. A vote for anyone except Kucinich remains a vote for corporate rule.

The reality remains that the bit of democracy which people were once able to achieve has been effectively eliminated. The marginal number of potential voters tells us that most Americans already decline to consent to the regime; the majority of Americans no longer consent to this mode of government, and the Declaration of Independence tells us that it's the right of people to alter or abolish such governments.

Aafke Janssen,

I can assure you I'm not a spy for the Democrats. First, because I don't like them all that well, for many of the same good reasons the progressives point out here at great length. Second, because if they hire spies to visit websites, they will be looking for someone smarter and more connected than me.

Dichterfreund,

You're right about the Supreme Court being mostly regressive throughout its history except for the Warren Court and its remnants. (1960s - 1970s)
I still see that time as part of what they briefly called Camelot when Kennedy was elected. I'm still sad that it started ending with the Reagan era, and I want it back for our children. Call me naive, in denial, whatever. I know it's uphill with Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and half-reliable Kennedy already there, especially since all five of those guys are not only "conservative" but fraternally linked by all belonging to one church denomination (Catholic.) Worse yet, 4 of them also served "at the pleasure of Republican presidents" as government lawyers, as opposed to ever representing individuals in courts for anything. My blood pressure does not behave well at the thought that Giuliani or Thompson could ever be permitted to appoint even one single name.

If you, or anybody, can get Kucinich nominated, I promise I'll support and vote for him. Failing that, I still feel we need Obama, Edwards, H. Clinton or anyone else for president who is not a Republican.

Like you, by the way, I too was disappointed that the Democrats did not filibuster Alito. They should have, and Harry Reid, as leader, did not properly lead on that.

Daniel David

Daniel David,

"If you'll settle for a Republican in 2008 just to teach the Democrats a "lesson", it will be the Republican Supreme Court (further appointed in 09, 10, 11, and 12) that will be teaching YOU the lessons. (And your kids.)"

The Supreme Court is regressive BY DESIGN. The brief quarter century when the Warren Court and the majority remaining through the start of Reagan was an utter aberration. No one studying the history of the Court could possibly conclude that it was ever meant to be anything but a major bulwark against the rights of the dispossessed.

The first step to human liberty in the United States is abolishing the Court. It's particularly important to recall with Clary Thomas' venomous diatribe being published this week that THE SUPREME COURT ALREADY BELONGS IN PERPETUITY TO THE RIGHT. You may have noticed that Alito and Roberts got in with the eager assistance of Democrats who trembled that they would be prevented from ever filibustering. If the Republicans HAD resorted to th enuclear option, Democrats would now have nothing at all to fear from Republican threat of filibuster.

The Democrats are the equivalent of the abused mother of abused children who keeps the family together on the basis that daddy -- and I mean the corporate rulers, not just the Smirk -- is really a good man, except when the kiddies or mummy misbehave.

Daniel David, I really think you a spy for the Democrats.

Right on. She stands for NOTHING except herself. I wouldn't trust her to wash dishes in my kitchen

None of the candidates are going to make a difference...they're all in this together, they don't want to make a difference, they are not there in the best interest of the American people, they are there for power and money! Period! They enjoy life time health benefits and salaries...who else in America has such perks? And what do they do for these perks? Blah, blah, blah!

Little brother:

Awesome post - especially the second paragraph- fantastic. I would agree with you wholeheartedly. I think there must be the formation of a third party - or some mechanism to prevent the hegemony of our electoral process by the super-rich. It is virtually impossible for an Evo Morales, Correa, etc to be elected within the present system.

The barriers are real and the obstacles placed knowingly in order to circumvent any truly populist candidate from entering the fry and actually expanding the debate with hard truth. An example would be the shameful way Mike Gravel is sidelined during many of these so-called public debates. First of all - it is my view - that one can NOT ask only a few candidates to answer a question. Equal time MUST be given to each candidate - in addition - the favoritism shown subtly by allowing certain candidates to CONTINUOUSLY over-step their alloted time is yet another example of the public 'at large' being steered to vetted candidates who have promised to eat their children and stab their fellow Americans in the back for some time in the artificial sunlight of transient power.

You know, in the era of blogging in the political mudslide of 21st Century Amerika, I have continually been struck by persons who comment in what might charitably be called a "tough love" perspective, and otherwise called scolding, hectoring, gaming, and lecturing, with no attempt to sweeten their palpable contempt, disdain, disgust, and frustration towards we perverse and incorrigible maggots who remain unable or unwilling to get with the(ir) program.

I know all of their rhetorical tropes by now, from the caustic pejorative of "purity" to the Prime Directive of Not Letting the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good. The Lesser Evil Suite is a pretty limited repertoire: brittle strategy, uncritical loyalty, rote ritual performances, leaden pragmatism and obsession with process-- and pride & satisfaction at being a team player and embracing expediency and mediocrity.

Skimming through the previous comments, something clicked. I've read hundreds of comments by these pissed-off sensible, politically-savvy partisan Democrats seething and railing about Naderites, the folly of third-parties, Gore and Kerry as victims, slain like Caesar by a multitude of daggers-- not least Ralph the Knife's.

But it dawned on me just now that these folks apparently think that by now, independents and marginal Democrats who wandered off the Democratic reservation should be ashamed, and remorseful for depriving the rightful occupants of the Oval Office of their due. That is, I can only think that commenters who consciously adopt the demeanor of a drill sergeant intend their jeremiads to be, in part, an appeal for redemption: get over yourselves and come back to Hillary's bosom, or the equivalent, while there's still time!

Apart from the overall cluelessness inherent in this two-dimensional, blindered universe, I really believe that all of the rancor and hostility comes from the fact that partisan loyalists, being self-consciously unselfish, have to overcome their gag reflexes while spooning down a lot of lame and soul-withering bullshit incorporated into the party line-- and if they have to go through all that in the dim and doubtful hope that they are setting in motion a juggernaut of political virtue, the rest of us had damn well better start spooning too.

I thought the first dozen or so comments here were really excellent! (far as I got so far). The real issue just has to be imperialism. Dems are as committed, as locked into it, as repubs. What is the last time a candidate for dog catcher suggested a gas tax, some means of letting folk know that oil is not forever? ANS: at least 30 years ago. They were instantly diselected.

Is it sexist to point out HRC can't get enough of that Bush-enabling corporate juice? Didn't she realize one of the major "possible" side effects of guzzling from the poison is witchy-poo-like cackling? It says so right there on the side of the briefcase full of hedge fund cash. Warning:...

Who is the only candidate that voted AGAINST more debt for the illegal occupation? That's right - Dr. Ron Paul. The red Russ Feingold! Two of the last few men or women left with actual integrity and character.

It's always amusing to hear a feminist refer to Clinton as "Hillary" while referring to the male candidates by their last names. In so doing, you perpetuate the notion that women are the lesser of the genders. I may not like Clinton, but I like women and think they deserve a little respect in this form.

This whole election is phonier than a 3 dollar bill. Our totally controlled media has served us up the choice of candidates that are approved safe bets by our facist oligarchy. No real issues will be debated. Any candidate deemed to have free will and any brilliance will be denied a place at the table. Things are further gone than many people suspect.
We need a really good leader to start cleaning up the mess left by this criminal bunch that has been running things.
I beleive if we did somehow elect a person who could make a difference that we have a hard time keeping them alive.

you see what are the young people going to think of us if we debate the merits of Clinton, if that's possible, when we already told the kids, "ok we'd vote for someone real if it came down to it? here's the keys to the car."

they'll think we're sell outs if we cop on this one oh wise ones of the commondreams elder's consul. Oh yeah, I forgot we mortgaged their future for the past 60 years or so. . .and went to work for the man too boot.

The dems have nothing to worry about -- no thinking people at this website.

Why don't you fools -- perhaps some of you in the 40 percent of the country that is registered under the Independent non-party -- REGISTER DEM AND freaking infiltrate the primary. I don't know if the deadline has passed, but if it has not, get in and vote KUCINICH. Why bother with ding and dong when you can choose from ding dong dunderhead bozo -- and DENNIS -- the guy whose positions match the majority of the American people's. Or even Edwards if you can pass on universal healthcare.

The collective brainfart on this is astounding.

i don't think dems or repukes have much to worry about if this is the level of our enlightened thinking.

BTW, Kucinich will be on COLBERT sometime this week -- and i don't work for him.

If he doesn't make it, you can vote green in the general.

As predicted - and as desired by those in power - by starting the campaign for the presidency years before the scheduled election, we are being swiftly worn down. By November 2008, we'll be happy to maintain the status quo. We're certainly working hard to see that the democrats don't win a damned thing.

PJD- not to worry about a totally packed right-wing court is insane.

Great column by BE and spot on as usual. Politt is a Hillary shill. And why anyone reads Maureen Dowd is beyond my comprehension. As far as Obama - what a disappointment. He's learned how to play it safe from Hillary but too late - she can now outspend him almost 2-1 and money is the way they keep score - and Americans accept that. So we get the government we deserve of course.

Hey Jamaz - say goodbye to your SS checks and medicare no matter who wins. We're practically bankrupt already.

http://badamerican.wordpress.com/

I thought we had all agreed the other day we at common dreams are voting for Kucinich. Where were you all? You see, now we have to go back and straighten it all out again that got crooked and confused.

Considering that a democratically elected government in a foreign country can be marginalized, humiliated, and systematically dismantled, and that the US gave it's word that it would support the decision of the will of the people of that country but then went back on it's word, is there really a choice here? That was on the other side of the globe practically, here they have home field advantage? and video cameras recording our practice sessions? IE they don't play fair, who does anymore?

Further, the guy we got now, the beer and pretzel man who's failed at every business venture he's ever put his hand to, he wasn't elected either, he was appointed last I heard.

I propose let's see if we can get rid of the unelected crime family we got now before we really think we can choose someone who represents the will of the people. Until then, the coming election is moot.

The idea is to vote for Edwards or Kucinich in the primaries. If Hillary still gets the nomination, VOTE for HER in the general election and MAKE her listen to us. With any repuglican as POTUS nothing will happen unless there is a Democratic super majority. The Supreme Court will be a vital reason to have a democrat in the white house....and by the way, Ron Paul may be against the war but is also opposed to the New Deal so say goodbye to your social security checks and medicare -- off to the ice floe with you!

'If you'll settle for a Republican in 2008 just to teach the Democrats a "lesson", it will be the Republican Supreme Court (further appointed in 09, 10, 11, and 12) that will be teaching YOU the lessons."

Oooh! Just in time for holloween. Here come the hand-wringing liberals to scare us with their ol "vote for the sold-out democrat or we will get a right-wing supreme court" story!

Buddy, the supreme court already has a reactionary right wing majority! And the "liberals" led by the repubilican Stevens are hardly leftists.

I don't know about the other instances, but I found, her laughter-as-reply to Sen. Gravel's dead-serious question asking why Hillary voted for the virtual-authorization of an attack in Iran, to be the most chilling thing I've ever seen in politics. It looked to be pure mocking derision of Graavel's question! How did Gravel keep his cool?

Hillary can go to hell.

If you'll settle for a Republican in 2008 just to teach the Democrats a "lesson", it will be the Republican Supreme Court (further appointed in 09, 10, 11, and 12) that will be teaching YOU the lessons. (And your kids.)

Progressives will still be writing blogs, of course, but with less and less practical effect, and possibly via a re-defined internet with re-defined rights of free speech.

PS ... if you think that Democrats protect the Constitution, go watch the You Tube video of the student getting arrested and tasered for daring to ask a political question to John Kerry, and John Kerry doing absolutely nothing to help defend the Constitution when abuses are happening just a 100 feet in front of him.

And how did progressives hurt Kerry in 2004 anyways? That's the year the progressives and the anti-war movement made the HORRIBLE mistake of supporting Kerry! Geeze, Democrats just make this stuff up to suit them .... yet another way they are just like Republicans.

The problem of course is that the Democrats have been doing absolutely nothing 'to protect the Constitution', and there's no hint of a sign that a Democratic President would do any more.

Quick, what was the vote on the Patriot Act? How many Democrats voted Yes? I remember one No vote in the Senate (Feingold) and a small handful in the House. Now in the 2006 congress, what serious attempts backed by the leadership have their been to roll back and contain the abuses of the Bush years. The answer is none. In fact, they've gone the other way in passing legislation to expand Bush's domestic spying and to make earlier illegal actions retroactively legal. And now the rumor is that the telecoms and their lobbyist money are going to get the Democrats to give them immunity for illegal spying as well.

The Clinton presidency gave us the first federal anti-terror bills, the introduction of the federal death penalty and aggressive police surveilence of the people they regarded as enemies such as the anti-globalization protestors at the WTO and the World Bank.

Every sign I've seen says the Democrats aren't opposing Bush's police state policies because a) they support the idea, and b) they expect to be wielding the same power after 2008.

If you want a candidate to help protect the Constitution, the voting Democrat is just as bad as voting Republican. Maybe worse because the Democratic brand is usually used to give cover to actions the Republicans wouldn't dream of taking on their own. A Democratic President who is acting in these same ways is harder to oppose because some of the Democrats who would oppose a Republican will change positions and support exactly the same actions and bills from a Democrat.

If you want to protect the Constitution, PLEASE DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!

If you want party unity, maybe its time for the pro-war, pro-spying, pro-corporate Democrats to compromise with the majority of the American people for a change.

To tell you truth--the somewhat inappropriate nervous laughter never bothered me as much as the smug look of self-satisfaction she had on her face everytime she heard herself talk.
That and the corny folksiness and the "You knows"--at least she doesn't "ah" so much anymore. That was impossible.

"The progressives are little more than an annoyance to the Democrats."

The leadership of the Democratic party has no intentions of doing anything progressive. They are pro-war, pro-domestic spying, pro-corporate governance. If you want to know the size of the 'progessives' in Congress, check the number votes on the bill in the last few days that gave another $9 billion for the Iraq war. 15 No votes out of the whole Congress. And one of those was a Republican (Paul - TX).

The progressives try to somehow to push the Democratic party where its never been in its history. The closest the Democrats ever came to being progressive was in '72 when McGovern won the nomination. Since then, the number one goal of the leadership of the Democratic party has been to drive the party away from positions such as being against war and in favor of national health care.

What I don't understand is why there are any progressives in the Democratic Party. The party clearly does not represent any progressive views and just as clearly wants to make sure its never pushed into that position. The Democrats throw out a lot of lies to get progressives to vote Democrat, just like the Republicans throw out a lot of lies to get 'values voters' to vote for the Republicans.

But its all just a sham. The Democratic Party is not and has no intention of ever being 'progressive'.

Walt,
Sorry, but I don't get your reasoning. How is nominating the candidate with the highest negatives a productive path to victory? One key difference between Obama and Clinton is that, when people get more exposure to him, they actually like him more. The guy took southern Illinois. I don't know if you've spent much time there, but they aren't overly kind to African-Americans.

Also, how does Hillary becoming president "defeat the right?" It only co-opts the marginal opposition the Democratic Party represents. This is what the DLC and Bill did in the first place, and Hillary would only put this in hyper mode. Where she does have principle, she will cave.

Worse yet, and returning to my original point, she'll lose in the general. Chris Matthews & Co. won't be as smitten with her once there's a Republican candidate. What lost 2000 and 2004 (other than massive fraud) was inept campaigning and, in Kerry's case, a lousy candidate. Even when Gore ran, he wasn't the Al Gore we know today. He was consulted out of any viability. The progressive movement didn't hand anything to the Republicans. That was the Democratic Party. It did help in 2006, despite the best efforts of General Rahm to triangulate to the nth degree.

I held my nose and voted for Kerry in 2004, and it is the one vote I regret. I was sure they'd fight back this time; but no, we got a hasty concession instead. What is the definition of insanity again?

I would gladly vote for Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Kucinich, Shays or Gravel. Probably even Biden. I just can't do it for Hillary. The others aren't perfect, but at least they meet those lefties like myself halfway... in the case of Edwards and Kucinich, 3/4 of the way. It isn't about someone being a perfect candidate in relationship to my outlook, it is about having my party force (pick your expletive) down my throat over and over and expecting me to care or consent. I have a simple standard in the primaries: Anybody But Hillary. That isn't asking too much, is it?

Returning to electability, why not Edwards? A Southern white male with great hair and good views. Sounds pretty darned good to me from a strategic angle.

If you want perpetual war elect Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guliani or John McCain. Should you wish to downsize the Empire elect Obama or Ron Paul.

Hillary considers that being the favorite candidate of Sharon Olmert Lieberman etc
is the guarantee she needs to become
first female president of the United States.
Those gentlemen unfortunately represent an outdated ideology that castigates progressive politics in Israel and ailleurs.
Her uproarious laughter comes across as an explosion of contempt for those gullible mortals who still have 'principles'. Something she chose to loose to support the military industry and the usual neocons. Being the spoiled child of Israel why should she bother with the rest of the populace? How boring!
Better to concentrate in keeping the coffers open while camouflaging when needed into the progressive she is absolutely NOT.
To alternate, in her words.

At the risk of making things more amusing...

geez walt, the moderates serve up patsies that can't distinguish themselves from a paper bag, then have too much delicacy to protest a stolen election and you want to blame the progressives.

And isn't "terminally masochistic female intellectuals..." kind of a stereotype?

And does Barbara Ehrenreich really like Obama so much?

The above two posts are amusing in their proximity.
The first one suggests progressives are little more than an annoyance to the Democrats--like a pesky insect that keeps buzzing past their ear, and the second suggests it is all the progressives fault for not aligning behind the rightward leaning Democrats in defeating the Right.

Hey Barb (apt name) Please don't worry. Between the sexists-in-denial idiots who degrade her unmercifully on the internet, the doe-eyed, casual sexists like Maureen Dowd who seem to feel obligated to trash her to prove their integrity, and the hard time she gets from the "more feminist than thou" terminally masochistic female intellectuals in the media (uh witch group are you in?) Hillary doesn't stand a chance.

So you can take comfort in your puppy love with Obama, who the neo-con machine will turn into road kill and then you all can go over to David Geffen's house and drink margaritas and bitch about the dunderheaded American voters who just can't get "your way" into their thick heads on the night of Rudy's Inaugural Ball.

Christ I have watched the Progressive movement hand two elections to the creeps on the right and you know what? I thought after 2000 and 2004 it just couldn't happen again. But here we go ... again.

It's not about loving Hillary. It's about defeating the Right. You don't have the luxury to get the candidate of your dreams you have to protect the Constitution from further damage and try to restore some equilibrium to our democracy.

Daniel David: a Clinton presidency would be worse than a moderate Republican presidency. The Democrats need to fail before they will change. In fact, even their failing, by itself, won't force them to change--they're getting well paid to fail, after all.

The bankruptcy of conservatism is becoming more obvious every day. If Clinton fails, we have a chance to nominate and elect someone good in 2012. In the meantime, we have a chance to do other stuff without fighting all that '90's-style complacency.

I realize there is a short-term cost to having a Repub president vs. a Democratic president. In my opinion it's worth it.

Farka: Nobody's afraid we'll 'bolt" because progressives are not quite as numerous, not as organized, and not as passionate as the Christian right, so we're not as powerful. Even if some progressives did "cost Gore the election" (I'm skeptical), the Democrats don't act like they care, and we still have very little power in presidential politics. In fact, Democrats probably feel they have more to lose by associating with us than to gain.

It's unfortunate that "conservatives" and their Democratic accomplices are colluding in doing terrible things and tearing down the country, but it will be especially unfortunate if they can do all that and keep us in the ghetto besides.

According to the New York Times, the "weirdest moment" came in response to a question from Bob Schieffer about Republican charges that her health plan would lead to "socialized medicine." As the Times reports, "She giggled, giggled some more, could not seem to stop giggling -'Sorry, Bob,' she said - and finally unleashed the full Cackle."

I don't think she got to finish her sentence...'Sorry, Bob, are you kidding, I'm bought and paid for by the health insurance industry.' Then the cackle.

Since I believe that the purpose of government is to help its citizens, I can't understand these people who want Ron Paul to be president. Libertarians do not believe that government should help anyone. Everything should be privatized. The Libertarian Party is far to the right of the Republican Party in that respect.

Hillary Clinton is for nothing other than to INCREASE corporate power. That is her ONLY goal when she wins the presidency.

I wish Ron Paul & Mike Gravel could be our President and Vice President, in any order !

Hillary is the perfect candidate for the corporate state. If she wins, so what? If she loses, all the better. At least that's what Rupert Murdoch thinks.

With a little luck, Giuliani gets the Republican nomination. Evangelicals either bring in a third party candidate they can endorse for pro-life, or they stay home in droves on election day, and Mrs. Clinton becomes President Clinton. For all the critics of her, a lot worse thing could happen. We could have Giuliani or Thompson, either of whom will be Captain of Team Corporation.

I, for one, find making fun of Hillary's laugh to be about as cerebral as I found most of my year in the fourth grade. Who let the "mean girls" loose?

nickhart, I like Cynthia McKinney, too. The Democrats fired her for doing her job when she stood up to Bush.

I wouldn't vote for her because "she's black and a woman." I'd vote for her because I thought she was the best person for the job.

"She'd be a hell of a lot better than any of the lying, hypocritical, pro-war, pro-corporate jackals that are currently running."

Neither Gravel, Kucninich, or R. Paul are pro-war, pro-corporate jackals. Kucinich may a bit of a hypocrite and a liar in some ways. I'm not entirely sure about this, though.

here's the Dave Lindorff article in which he asserts McKinney quit:

http://counterpunch.org/lindorff09272007.html

McKinney resigned from the Democratic Party? Is she in league with Lindorff? Can I get a link on the story or a transcript of a statement by her to this effect?

I think his idea is the best one I've heard so far: change your status to Independent, and let your local Democrats know just why. Easy for me, I live in a state redder than a Burmese monk's robe, so it doesn't really matter. Plus, no primary here. I have no voice at all in this electoral system, so why limit my symbolic voice to this atrocious party?

Wouldn't stop me for voting for a few of the potential nominees, unless a progressive candidacy sprouted up. It could. The Christofascists are saying they'll bail if Giuliani's the Republican nominee. Why aren't we a credible threat to bail? How is it that James Dobson counts and those of us to the left of Father Coughlin are out on the margins?

Even amongst CD-ers, Zoyas comment stands out in it's simplicity. All I want, too, is someone who will speak out in their campaign and then act to restore the checks and balances of the Founders. Then we can right the ship of state and make our way forward in troubled waters. Right on, zoya

All the rest is noise.

If "Progressives" would turn the following into a mantra, the "top tier" would slowly fade into oblivion.
http://www.dennis4president.com/home/
You have to have Faith and follow your conscience. I find it easy to believe America has a chance the more I follow d.K. and his ideas, courage, and drive against the odds. Isn't that what we are SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT TOO?!

This 'inevitability' angle that Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign is foisting on Americans is taking on all the charm of the Borg--'You will be assimilated.'It rivals the comment by Margaret Thatcher regarding corporate, oligarchic captalism: There is no alternative.

That's the wonderful thing about how the United States elects its politicians. It is impossible to be elected without being a corporate lackey and a waterboy for plutocratic interests.

Talk about no alternatives.

Race and gender are, of course, red-herring issues in this "horse-race" -- but nevertheless issues of utmost importance to the white male TV pundits and personalities who regularly raise them.

As far as I can see, Obama and Clinton are no different from any of the other candidates, all of whom appear to be lusting after the new executive powers that Bush has made the ultimate prize of 2008.

If I had a vote in your election, I'd go for whatever candidate promised to restore the checks and balances to American governance. But since there appears to be no one running on that promise, I'm just as happy not to have to cast a vote.

I think if Hillary gets the nomination a Republican will be elected.
Yes and one of them might be Hillary.

At the risk of sounding sexist, I think if Hillary gets the nomination a Republican will be elected.

I know plenty of men and women who dislike her a lot.

How about Cynthia McKinney? She just resigned from the Democratic party, she's black and a woman. She'd be a hell of a lot better than any of the lying, hypocritical, pro-war, pro-corporate jackals that are currently running.

This is not a question of style! Let us just say that Hillary Clinton is Joe Lieberman in drag and she will never be in line for a nobel peace prize. We are tired of these imperialist wars and she is enthralled with the empire.

If I was a believing man, I would be praying for the country to be saved from this annointing of Hillary Clinton as the candidate. I can remember when the campaign and the conventions were really suspenseful, but the corporate media is obsessed with their power to choose our candidates for us. More of the same enabling of radical Right and triangulation of policy that has brought the United States to the most dangerous place in our history. All many Democratic voters can do is babble about red state/blue state stuff fed them by the Tim Russert's of the World and fulminate against Ralph Nader for losing in 2000. They're just sure that is the only reason Gore lost the election, and not the media savaging Gore or the tepid campaign waged by Mr. Gore on the advice of his Washington Beltway advisors.