Jack37 addresses the compromise of voting for the lesser of two evils. How else can we hope to turn the system around if we cannot both follow our hearts and face the pragmatic reprecussions of our compromises. The Republicans and Democrats will keep moving to the right as long as we accept it. All the democratic frontrunners in the race for presidency see a need to keep some troops in Iraq to protect our 104± bases (12 of which are declared permanent), and to protect our embassy (the largest in the world and the size of the Vatican), and to fight terrorists. In other words, they also see that Iraq's oil is worth the costs to our nation. Who among them is williing to discuss how our nation's values and actions are the cause of terrorism? Who among them is committed to publically financed elections? Who among them is willing to fight for a just system of taxation? Who among them is committed to protecting our civil liberties? Who among them is demanding that the use of depleted uranium in Iraq, which is poisoning our troops and an entire civilization, be stopped?

Is it worth our time to discuss how Hillary is the worse choice possible?
We can vote for Kucinich, who has been marginalized by the media and his own party, in the primaries, but after the primaries we will be faced with either voting for the lesser of two evils or voting for a 3rd party candidate.

I, who have been voting for over 50 years, am no longer compromising. The system will not change unless many others do the same.

Hilary Bushlite is a very ugly soul. She loves war as much as Bush does.

People need to get used to the idea that the corporate oligarchy will serve up, as usual, a very narrow range of choices in the general election. Normally the only significant difference is with regard to social issues, but if Giuliani is the Republican nominee, we won't even have that. On the other hand, Bush/Cheney has set the country on a fascist course that a Republican would be sure to follow but a Democrat, even including Hillary, might not.

So it is going to be a pro-corporate war-mongering war criminal empire-builder either way, and the question is "Would you like a good heaping portion of fascism on your corporate oligarchy's empire?"

And if that is not enough of a choice, and I understand for many people it is not and I myself am wavering, then it looks increasingly like the solutions lie outside traditional methods such as voting and participating in the establishment political system, as that game is rigged.

That term, "modern construction of the Constitution", actually makes my skin crawl.

micki, no actually, everything you said was incorrect. If you just watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg and hear what the man has to say instead of spouting misinformation, you might begin to understand it. He is not against the common welfare. His solutions are the same as the old left (classical liberal)..remember Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson?..not the new left.

And what, pray tell, is "modern construction of the Constitution"? That sounds like all the crap that's been written into the constitution that's brought it to it's knees and destroyed it. Like the Fed, for instance, which was introduced, not by the right, but a modern leftist, Woodrow Wilson. (And, another modern leftist, FDR, who sold us out to foreign banks, which we will be paying for with our hard earned money for all eternity, unless it is destroyed. And all the lying, nit-picking laws that have only managed to make a complete mockery out of what once was the biggest hope for freedom in the world. And, btw, the Federal Income Tax is one of the biggest lies of all.

Yeah, Hellary voted for the Patriot Act. Most of the Democraps voted for the Patriot Act.

When you look back and realize how long all this has really been going on -- Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton -- it looks more and more like we're walking ahead into 1984..doesn't it?

Asking that we give respect to another human being whether they are male or female and refusing to use hate-speak does not mean that I'm supporting her stand on the issues of war or health care. In fact, because she has backed away from the concept of universal health care has pushed me toward Edwards. I don't believe that she is a strong feminist however, calling her (or any other candidates) names only shows intolerance not a legitimate concern for the issues.

the first time I did not vote dem for pres. was her husband's second term. I find Ms. Clinton the same type of person who would do anything to get power, and she has few values or morals that would get in the way of her power, much like her husband. But she does not have her husbands compassion or ability to understand the problems of people.

If she gets the dem nomination I hope Paul get the repub, I will hold my nose but we need leaders in the Democratic party, not someone who follows the polls no matter how ridiculas

>Please, don't ever try to export your type of democracy. It's fake.

We didn't, but France seems to be trying to pick it up. Look at the last presidential election there - Sarkozy = Bush, Segolene = Hillary; and Sarkozy won with the same kinds of anti-immigrant BS rhetoric that served the GOP so well in the US. Now Bush and Sarkozy are all chummy with each other. The people of Western Europe need to be more than a little careful, imo.

"I am amazed and apalled by the amount of misogynistic language and name calling involved in the criticisms of Ms. Clinton."

Agreed. I oppose Clinton because she stands for more of the same Monroe Doctrine imperialism that is part & parcel of American foreign policy (and that's just for starters).

Nevertheless, THAT sort of talk reveals a certain baseness that is simply wrong (and after all, it is the same rhetoric as Rush dittoheads).

~ Proud Unamerican

>Why make all these personal attacks for a political action?

While I agree about the use of misogynistic language in relation to Ms. Clinton, it's unfair to paint her as some innocent. Her actions as per Iran are part of a strategy that, if successful, is going to do far more damage to the lives of women both in this country and in Iran than some ill-advised name calling is going to. She's sleeping with the enemy big time. Supporting her when she does such things is *not* feminism! *sighs*

I am amazed and apalled by the amount of misogynistic language and name calling involved in the criticisms of Ms. Clinton. Why are people discussing what they ASSUME to be her character or what they PRESUME to be in her mind? She evidently thought that there was legitimacy in her vote. Why make all these personal attacks for a political action? I don't see all of the men in the campaign being sexually emasculated and maligned. Aren't there any of you who can regard an issue with some sanity?

People like Clinton and lieberman are not the problem. The system that produces them is corrupt. Skunks breed skunks; deers create fawns.

You need to eradicate the system, but you cannot do it by using Diebold voting machines that leave no paper trail. You will go through dropping-a-ballot-in-the box motion which has nothing to do with a democratic election, because whether you want it or not, one of the two that have already been picked will come out of the ballot box.

Please, don't ever try to export your type of democracy. It's fake.

Copied this and quoted from another blog:

"According to OpenSecrets.org, Hillary Clinton's contributions come from:

Law Firms $6.5 Million
Securities $3.3 Million
R.E. Dev $2.7 Million
Movies/music $1.6 Million
HMOs/health $1.0 Million
Teachers $1.0 Million
Hedge Funds $0.7 Million
Hi-Tech $0.6 Million
Comm. Banks $0.5 Million
Insurance $0.4 Million
Lobbyists $0.4 Million

70% of her contributions were in amounts over $2,300.
9% of her contributions were in amounts less than $200.

She is amongst the top 3 recipients of campaign contributions in most industries listed by opensecrets. Opensecrets does not appear to track contributions from aerospace or the military industry."

Talk about the Junta in Burma/Myanmar/the Saudi Royal Family/Putin's reign and the following:

Bush Senior 8 years as VP
Bush Senior 4 years as P. total 12 years.
Clinton, B 8 years as P
Bush Junior 8 years as P
Clinton H. 8 years as potential P.

The Bush/Clinton dynasties Bushes 20 years. Clintons 8 years goin-on 16.

Grand total for both a possible 36 years. Or a person born in 1980 would have lived through the Lebanon, Kosovo, Bosnia, Nicaragua, Somalia, Gulf War I; Aghanistan Invasion, the Iraq Cakewalk, and most probably the nuking of Iran.

Wonder if by then, thats in 2016 how old will OBL be?

lol - or, "Thank you for the question, but given your substandard IQ and lack of formal training, clearly you have been provided information from sources not approved by the Crown, which is why I am now going to tell you how to think," Clinton replied deftly.

New caption for above photograph...

"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you since your brain is only this big" Clinton began.

There must be Clinton voters on this site and blog. To all the Clinton voters, I have a serious question for you. Are you aware you are voting for a canidate who supports the following:

-Continuing the War in Iraq indefinately with a permanent US presense on permanent military bases in Iraq (a South Korea type model).

-Continuing any War that Bush begins with Iran, and/or possibly attacking Iran herself.

-Continuing the 1 TRILLION dollar military and war budget

-Continuing The Patriot Act, unconstitutional civil liberty restrictions and suppression of free speech, "enhanced interrogation techniques (torture)," illegal domestic wiretappin/spying programs, and surveillence. Suppression of free speech, and other various amendments.

-A Health Insurance scheme that is simply another government handout and giveaway of taxpayer dollars to big corperations, not a universal system of nonprofit insurance. Continuing the merger of corperations and government into one.

-Will not give us a middle class/lower class tax break, while working towards a more fair tax system on the wealthiest 1%.

-Continuing the blackmailing, manipulation and controlling of the major media outlets from top down, and the information given to them. Suppression of free press.

And Obama and Edwards are also both not too far off from the same positions on the issues above, they just explain it differently. They're all cut from the same cloth.

So again, I pose the questions and i'm looking for serious responses... Are you aware you plan to vote for a canidate who supports these?

why is is that there are only two families in this country "qualified" to rule? Bush Clinton Bush Clinton. It's absurd. Kucinich is the one for me, has been all along. He has decency and compassion. Hilary Clinton does nothing for me and if women are voting for her simply for the reason that she is a woman, think again.

Reported on Democracy Now, "it has been revealed that Blackwater recently hired a public relations firm with ties to Senator Hillary Clinton. A subsidiary of the PR firm Burson-Marsteller helped Blackwater founder Erik Prince prepare for his recent testimony before Congress. The president of Burson-Marsteller is Mark Penn – the chief strategist for Clinton"s presidential campaign." She is a Republican in disguise folks. I did a survey in which one of the questions asked was, is Hillary Clinton a Liberal, Moderate or Conservative? She is very conservative -- she hangs out with all the extreme right people in government in her ultra conservative church group. She is a repub disguising herself as a liberal. She just a lot of bull, folks!! Supported by the media in her big lie.

I was never for Hillary Clinton. I will vote for Kucinich in the primaries. If he doesn't make it, I will write him in as my candidate of choice in the final round, regardless of who else is on the ticket. He is the only candidate worth voting for, since he is the only true candidate for the people and what the people want -- and NEED. That means, taking on the industrial military complex, which all the other candidates will not do. They're all corporate whores, of, by, and for the corporations. The Fix is in.

If Bush doesn't attack Iran before he leaves office the next president surely will especially if it's Hillary or Rudy.

Undoubtedly Hillary is a very skilled politician, which is why she is leading in the polls.

She definitely knows how to play the game.

She thinks she already has the liberals in her pocket and is now moving to the right of center where despite our wishful thinking most of the country seems to be.

Lets face it my friends the majority of the electorate is very fickle and can move to the right or to the left in a heart beat depending on a particular issue.

A smart politician understands that at least fifty percent of the voters are redneck, bigoted warmongers who want a strong militaristic president, which is why the voters legitimately put the psychopath back in office again.

With Hillary we never know for sure whether she is just posturing to the warmonger segment of our country or if she actually would move away from the dictates of the Israeli lobby?

Nevertheless, when it comes time to make a selection in the general election I think I would have to grimace but pull the lever for Hillary instead of any republican or any third party protest rival.

We tried voting our conscience for a green party candidate and where did our protest vote get us, in the mess we are today. Lets be realistic folks we desperately need a democrat in the white house even if we have to settle for Hillary.

KUCINICH in the Primaries.

"to state that Bush does not have the authority to use military action against Iran and that she is working on legislation to put that into law."

If Dubya doesn't have the authority to start a war with Iran, then why does Clinton feel the need to put it into law. It already is, it's called the Constitution! ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR!!!

This is the type of exchange, between the people and candidates,that should be taken place all over this country,if we lived in a true democracy, it be..
I am also surprised, he was not dragged out, and taserd!

KUCINUCH IN 2008!

Why do I keep hearing Tom Lehrer's "So Long, Mom" running through my head?

jjpeters

You are right on the mark. As I've asked before: Who would vote for the wife of George H W's good buddy Bill? Just as Clinton I (?) let Bush I (et al.) off the hook for real crimes, so would Clinton II do the same for Bush II (et al.). And just as the Republicans said 'thank you' by going after Bill Clinton for every imaginable - and imaginary - little thing, so would Hillary Clinton be harrassed constantly. Not that I care about her, but really, do we need another two terms of that kind of chaos?

Scarier yet, there is talk about grooming a Bush III - and then what? Chelsea? (Boy, and people complained about the Roosevelts.)

Bill Clinton, with his wife by his side, (remember 'two for the price of one'?), and the Democrats in Congress could have decimated the Republicans with those investigations, but they sold out to them (and to big money) - and we should reward them by sending them back to the White House to screw us over once again?! (Fool us once...)

Hillary plays lullabies over the muzak system in America while chimp drops nukes on Iran.

restive,please elaborate,in what ways,worse ?interested..would like to hear..

>Libertarian philosophy is, in some ways, worse than the sneaky shit that the Bush Regime has pulled on us.

*Right-wing* libertarian philosophy. Left-wing libertarian = social anarchist a la Noam Chomsky, Murray Bookchin, Emma Goldman, et. al. Just felt the need to point that out, not that it has much to do with Ron "I never met a laissez-faire I didn't like" Paul.

Simonhhh: Please don't call Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi 'witches'. I know many, and they are all kind, caring , generous people. They would be appalled to be compared to those self-serving hypocrites.

AIPAC and Israel pressure Congress and Bush to attack Iran.

Hillary Clinton - on issues of foreign policy - is a stoog and mouthpiece for AIPAC and Israeli war-mongers. Hillary's politics reveal her as de facto an honorary Israeli citizen. For how many lost American lives - beginning with the USS Liberty - will ordinary Americans tolerate the soldiers' lives and tax dollars lost to the war-mongering agenda? What position has she taken on the enduring and current effort to finally have Congressional hearings on the Israeli murder of our sailors on the USS Liberty? Not one word!
Mearsheimer-Walt are right, right, right, and H. Clinton is a key to AIPAC's sinister influence in our Congress. If she becomes president, odds are very good her chief of Staff will be one of those Americans with Israeli citizenship.

Hillary is being poised as the next Democratic President because the Republican connections are pushing her into the limelight and blocking out better candidates like Dennis and Al because they figure the public will go Democratic. She never gives a straight answer and sounds more like Nixon every day. I have never heard one straight answer out of her mouth that hasn't been retracted or misinterpreted. Just what DOES she stand for? Enforced medical insurance. So if one can't afford medical insurance, will they be banned from the States? She's a clever idiot.

the civilians of iraq were never our enemies,until bush/cheney shocked and awed bombed,tortured,and broke their bodies and their families and what is left of their lives into little bits of jellied matter strewn around like roadkill in the streets of mesopotamia.we could have had more diplomatic negotiations with iran,over the issue of nuclear arms,had not bush/cheney worked so very hard on puffing themselves up and casting a big wraith-like shadow on the world'"you will fear us,we will nuke you,"cries the big sissy coward george w.bush,as hides behind the skirts of the american people !''o.k.you win,youre right we do fear you,cause your a crazy bloodcrazed s.o.b.and right back at you,bush."replies the other crazy but serenely composed s.o.b. of iran.bring it on,bush yells from behind our skirts,ANOTHER FINE QUAGMIRE QUANDRY THE IDIOT SON OF A GREEDY DEVIL HAS PUSHED THE FACE OF AMERICA INTO A PILE OF SHIT AND BUSH HAS GOT ONE FOOT ON THE BACK OF OUR NECK,RUBBING OUR NOSE IN THE SHIT,WHILE HE TRIES TO SHOVE HIS OTHER FOOT UP OUR COLLECTIVE ASS !! VOTE FOR RON PAUL OR DENNIS KUCINICH..BUT I WANNA KNOW WHAT theyre gonna do concerning iran,now that bush f*cked that up,too.

But, thank goodness, Ron Paul won't be president, because there are still enough Americans with their eyes open to know that he's a total, effin' loser who JUST HAPPENS TO BE AGAINST BUSH'S WAR OF CHOICE ON IRAQ.

And the only reason he's against it is because it's costing a lot of dough. He's not against it for moral reasons.

He's against it because of the cost -- the monetary cost. That's it, folks.

Yessiree, Ron Paul is anti-THIS war, but he's also "anti" just about everything that stands for fairness and the common good in a democratic society.

He's anti-infrastructure maintenance and building, he's anti-social services, he's anti-choice, totally anti-federal tax (which is unrealistic at best, but plain selfish at worst), he's anti-United Nations, he's anti-modern construction of the Constitution.

I submit that you who think that Ron Paul is a better choice than any Democrat for president should spend a little time doing some research.

For those of you who don't pay much attention to politics, you should know that libertarian philosophy is about freedom only for rich white guys. They hate government -- all government! They especially hate government regulations of any kind -- no oversight, is their by-word. Libertarian philosophy is, in some ways, worse than the sneaky shit that the Bush Regime has pulled on us. Because taking away government regulations on corporations, medicine, religion, etc., only means that those institutions have more power to take over.

If Ron Paul was president, say good-bye to workplace safety regulations, or standards for clean air and water, or licensing for medical professionals, etc..

Gawdalmight, wake up!

The triangulator exposed!

Nice job, Rolph. Hope there are more Iowans like you and that the pro Hillary mainstream media reports her melt downs.

She seems fairly acceptable to our rulers. Sadly there isn't a republican who wouldn't be a lot worse.
Republicans are easier to understand, there are two groups:
those who believe the lies and those who profit from them.

I assume that no politician succeeds without telling a lot of lies and making a lot of deals -- and perhaps not without destroying a lot of enemies (at least the latter is historically correct).

Bush is reported to have recently said, "and Sadam killed Nelson Mandella, too."

All the candidates should be asked how they feel, in this context, about this decider deciding about starting a nuclear war with Iran. If this quote isn't true, just substitute any of 100s of his lunatic utterances, and I'm not thinking about the deliberate lies which covers just about everything else

Somehow the MSM has forgotten that radiation is harmful to all living things-- and may have significant consequences world-wide.

(The Tripods)
(Soylent Green)

Don't worry, it's always been mostly lies!

Wasn't Kucinich the only one who bothered to read the authorization to go to invade Iraq? And which he voted against.

Hillary admitted that she has someone give her the equivalent of "Cliff Notes" on the resolution! On a WAR ACT that has killed over a million civilians and destroyed the infrastructure of a country, AND has increased hatred against the US, and therefore increased the chances of another horrific act of terrorism.

I said earlier that she was intelligent, but morally- she's an imbecile.

The Democratic leaders better wake up.

They are pushing for Hillary, assuming that us "lefties" will vote for her as lesser of two evils. I, for one, will absolutely NOT!

She's a Republican in drag, exactly like Lieberman, who supports the war machine.

The way she cackled and mocked Senator Gravel during the debate when he challenged her on her vote regarding Iran made me angry.

Why should I vote for someone as arrogant as Bush just because she calls herself a Democrat? The only difference between Hillary and Bush is that she is considerably more intelligent, but that AIN'T enough!

If it comes to a decision between Hillary VS Giuliani, I will absolutely vote Green. Both make me equally nauseated.

If the Dems lose, maybe they'll realize that shifting right to cater to disenchanted Republicans will NOT work!

If, by some miracle the Republican candidate is Ron Paul against Hillary, I'd vote Republican for the first time in my life, despite not agreeing with all his views. At least he is strongly anti-war.

Dear Joe Green Dog,

Bill Richardson is not for universal SINGLE PAYER health care. Yes, he's for the "universal" plan, whatever that is. Kucinich is the only candidate that has pledged to take the golden egg away from corporations and to put it directly into the hands of the people. It's so easy to vote for somebody like Kucinich because he explains in detail exactly how he will implement his plans. Everyone else just wants to play ball with corporations. He loves to take them on. He's championing everything that people feel is important on this site.

I'm voting for Kucinich in the primary. In the general I'm voting against any dim & repug who's policies do not align with my values of peace, justice an end to war and an end to corporate personhood. Then I am going to see if I can get my hands on a whole bunch of that Afghan opium, the next few years are likely to be worse than the last few. With idiots like HRC "leading the pack", and making policy for the US, I think a totally numb mind might be preferable.

Can we stop with the sexist epithets, please? It does no good and degrades the conversation.

Hillary is doing exactly what we expect from the fact that she never apologized or admitted error for her 2002 vote by which Bush legitimized the Iraq invasion. She said she made the right vote given the information that she had at the time.

The "information" she carefully weighed in 2002, of course, included the political winds that were calling to her to adopt a bellicose image and not to question the official vilification of Iraq.

Now she has the same "information" and she is making precisely the same calculated choice. Didn't she say she would do it again? The official position is to vilify Iran and she is not about to question that. The political winds are whispering in her finely tuned ear to adopt a bellicose stance on Iran.

The next time someone asks this question, they should ask, "In 2008, after Bush has bombed Iran-- citing, as proof that Americans across the political spectrum view Iran as a terrorist state, both 1) his anti-terror authorization under the AUMF that you voted for, and 2) your vote on Kyl-Lieberman-- will you once again say that you made the right decision given the information you had at the time?"

Ask that bitch what she meant by saying in June 2002: "We are going to take things away from you for the common good" Whose good? Sounds like Whitewater. Good for the Clintons. And once again she has voted for war and is getting away with it. No way do we wan't her to be a mirror image of Bush.

ruscle: Yes, what's important is not how Hillary interprets the designation of part of Iran's military as a terroristic group but how George Bush interprets it.

That is why she (and every other senator) should have voted against the Kyl/Lieberman amendment. Have they learned nothing from Iraq? (Demonize; create fear. Write Congressional resolutions to be voted for by fearful lawmakers. Write UN resolutions to be voted for by fearful and/or warlike Security Council. Make sure UN resolutions require intended target to prove a negative (Iraq - WMD, Iran-nuclear bombs); say that if the negative is not proved to our liking, the target is dishonoring the wishes of the "international community" by its refusal to comply. Invade.)

Kristina and Rebel Farmer:

It's not so much that I think that calling Hillary a corporate whore is wrong - I mean, she is a corporate whore. It's more the tenor overall that gets struck on CD when some folks express their more than understandable anger at War Criminal Hillary. I used to see the same thing when people would talk about Willie Brown in SF (another corporate whore who all but singlehandedly gentrified several neighborhoods, or at least did much to contribute to gentrification in his terms as mayor).

I just think that sometimes the institutional -isms can find their way into speech, even when the target is worthy of nothing less than getting called out for their atrocities. OTOH, speaking up beats the hell out of remaining silent because of some inane attempt to be PC. None of us are perfect, sexism is cultural and effects both men and women, patriarchy, sexism, systems of oppression, etc, etc. I trust you know what I'm saying here. :-)

I'm just a Brit. watching on the sidelines but Kucinich stood out right from the first bell. He is the only candidate who has any chance of pulling this country together and stop this disasterous Bush fire.

Clinton will be a complete disaster, vote for her and you'll have 8 years to regret it, after all she voted for the armed robbery and she'll order the bombing of Iran because her Zionist masters will order her to.

Restive: I'm really not into the PC thing. I'm not upset. I just have problems with words that tend to have a derogatory meaning that are gender or race based. Quite frankly, Hillary seems to have tried very hard to overcome her gender. She seems to have adopted the personnae of the "macho" male so she can look tough and can play with the big boys. And none of that really matters. She's a war monger. Just like most of the big boys she is playing with. She does not represent change. She is the status quo. She may be the lessor of two evils, but that still equals evil. And I won't EVER vote for the lessor of evils. Period.

Go Kucinich in the primaries!!!

restive, I'm not going to call you anything, pc or otherwise but what term should we use to describe someone that sells out their principles and soul for money (assuming she ever had any principles)? You are preaching to the choir btw, I am Wiccan and tend to lean towards the "Goddess" side of things.

It seems when it comes to war, whether continuing the Iraq War or starting one in Iran; there is very little difference between the Bush administration and Hillary.
Can we afford another war administration; financialy or militarily?

It seems we have forgotten our duties and responsibilities as citizens. We must stand up and put an end to this madness exercisedin our names. The whole world is wondering what happened to America!

Greendog Dem, Listen to the debate tonite on C-span if you can. You can put Kucinich up angianst any of the other democrats and only he will walk away with his dignity intact. Richardson has a few good things to say but everything Kucinich says reonates deeply with ,at least, the way I precieve my world to be. No body says anything about his Iran stand because DENNIS was there ,loud and clear, when IRAQ WAS PLANNED! He was the only one tovot agianst the fuckin war in the first place. Where was Richardson. Just give Dennis a chance. Check out C-span. Thanks

The Polls reflect media coverage. The mainstream media is the biggest determiner of who gets elected, who comes in second, and who is not even considered.

Does anyone remember when Barrack Obama was tied with Hillary Clinton in the polls. The media was covering him constantly. Since then coverage has fallen, John Edwards has picked up slightly more coverage but Hillary is by far the candidate with the most coverage in the mainstream media now.

Is it any surprise that she is leading in the polls now?

It is their stranglehold that must be broken if we are to substantially reduce their influence on the popularity of candidates.

We need to shift the distribution of TV channels to the internet, every land based provider of TV needs to be regulated to providing the kind of broadband other countries like South Korea have 100mbps rather than the 2/6 mbps upload/download rate we have here.

Only when the mainstream media is relegated to being just another video stream amongst thousands of news and politics video streams will their ability to influence candidate popularity be broken.

Cause and effect is the nature of the universe, coverage is the cause, the effect is increased popularity, whether it is Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsay Lohan, or Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Mitt Romney and Rudy Guilianni.

Coverage is the key and for the vast majority of people who watch TV those 4 candidates are covered far more than the other ones, some like Kucinich get no coverage outside of an actual debate and that is why they go no where.

Oh...and BTW, contrary to those who say NO ONE is for Hillary and her support is just a media myth, there are quite a number of AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO VOTE who have decided to endorse Hillary -- just a small sample:

TEACHERS UNION ENDORSES HILLARY!

Hillary last week received the endorsement of the American Federation of Teachers. The AFT has more than 3,000 local affiliates nationwide, 43 state affiliates, and more than 1.4 million members. We are thrilled that Hillary's commitment to quality education has been recognized by the leadership and members of the AFT.

Hillary said of the endorsement:
"Teachers are on the frontlines of shaping the minds of our next generation... Throughout my 35 years of working on education, I've seen the dedication that American teachers demonstrate day in and day out. That is why as President, I want to be partners with teachers, parents, and administrators to improve our education system." The AFT joins a growing group of national unions that have endorsed Hillary's campaign, including:

* International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
* National Association of Letter Carriers
* International Association of Machinists and Aerospace workers
* United Transportation Union
* Retail, Wholesale, Department Store Union

>What sexist epithet? The only name she was called is a "corporate whore" which she is. Whore is not masculing nor femine. I've known whores of both persuasions…

you're kidding, right? you can't use a - as in one among several - gender-neutral form of modern usage to erase hundreds of years of oppression, sorry. if you really can't stand her (and you'd be far from alone in that), please use some kind of neutral inflammatory term (s***head works pretty well, i find.)

ps: language matters, and terms matter - that's why we use them...now watch as you make my point by calling me p.c. :shrugs:

Most of the posts on this thread sound like they are written by lunatics from the right. And you call yourselves progressives?!

I was in Whitefish, Kalispell, and Glacier Nat'l Park last week and I did an informal "survey" of presidential bumperstickers on Montana-licensed vehicles. I saw only FOUR bumperstickers -- and all FOUR were for HILLARY '08.

I asked one of the drivers why he was for Hillary and he told me that he thought she was strong, realistic, intelligent, informed, and the only candidate that could easily rehabilitate the United States' image with other countries on foreign policy.

I asked him if any of his friends were for Hillary and he said, "Some have made up their minds and they're for her. Some said they'd vote for her or any Democrat because there is a difference between the parties contrary to all the bullshit I see in chat rooms and read on blogs."

Then he asked me if I was a liberal or what? He said progressives and liberals are gonna "fuck up this election with all their I-want-a-perfect-candidate" and I won't vote for anyone but Kucinich or Gravel bullshit."

Montana has two Democratic senators for the first time in a long time -- remember that Jon Tester beat the Repug incumbent in '06. Maybe ya'll should get out a little more and see that a lot of the country doesn't think like the regular (incessant) posters on sites such as this.

jack37 is correct!
Kucinich is the only candidate that holds my views

Edwards is a political whore

Hillary is no less

Obama seems to novice and tends to go with the mone$

I believe the driving force behind Senator Clinton's run for the Presidency is her singular desire to be president, nothing more. It is not to forward progressive social policy, to be a strong advocate against human kind's contribution to its own demise through overpopulation, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. It is not to serve the people of the United States. It is my conviction that she compulsively and obsessively wants to be elected President, and will do anything it will take to make that happen.

It is satisfying to read so many comments opposed to her. It is depressing that so much of the Democratic establishment has accepted her primary victory as a certainty.

I will never vote for a Republican and never for her in a presidential contest.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Nancy Pelosi both remind me of witches brewing broth in which to stew the American electorate...Not dissimilarly BOTH are just political hacks sold to the highest bidder...

I crossed Hillary off my list before she announced her candidacy. She is so opportunistic and committed to expediency that she has few solid ethical principles. She is dead wrong on Iraq, Iran, don't ask/don't tell, Cuba, Israel/Palestine, flag burning, on and on. Her positions on all these issues seem carefully chosen to endear her to war hawks, American Jews, the Cuban mafia in Miami and New Jersey, homophobes, and super-patriots. I'm none of the above, so she lost me long ago. Because she apparently has deluded most Democrats and independents I'll probably not vote in 2008 for the first time in sixty years. I'm sick of the political mess in our country.

Aristotle writes on the slight in Rhetoric:

"There are three kinds of slighting - contempt, spite, and insolence. (1) Contempt is one kind of slighting: you feel contempt for what you consider unimportant, and it is just such things that you slight. (2) Spite is another kind: it is a thwarting another man's wishes, not to get something yourself but to prevent his getting it. . .(3) Insolence is also a form of slighting, since it consists in doing and saying things that cause shame to the victim, not in order that anything may happen to yourself, or because anything has happened to yourself, but simply for the pleasure involved. . .The cause of the pleasure thus enjoyed by the insolent man is that he thinks himself greatly superior to others when ill-treating them. . .A man expects to be specially respected by his inferiors in birth, in capacity, in goodness, and generally in anything in which he is much their superior: as where money is concerned, a wealthy man looks for respect from a poor man; where speaking is concerned, the man with a turn for oratory looks for respect from one who cannot speak: their ruler demands the respect of the ruled, and the man who thinks he ought to be a ruler demands the respect of the man whom he think he ought to be ruling. . ."

Clinton seems to use "the slight" quite a bit, from this little exchange to her smirk or guffaw or chortle or whatever it is.

Ooops. Make her seventh. Put Kucinich on the list of preferable to Hillary--by a long shot!!

Regarding the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, both the original and revised amendments recommend designating the Guard as a terrorist organization. The revisions did remove language that could be construed as approving of an Iran invasion. Be that as it may, the real issues are: Hillary's pomposity and the saber-rattling tone of the revised amendment being only modestly muted from the original version. The amendment does not emphasize diplomacy in either version. Hillary's war-mongering proclivities, disingenuousness, and misrepresentations in this matter (and more generally) suggest a recklessness and wretchedness that the country can do without. Dems who vote for her are sucked in by a form of personality-cultism and a win-at-any cost attitude. They ignore the deficiencies in her leadership ability, the lack of efficacy of her policies, her lacks of integrity or originality. She is a poor sixth choice behind (in no particular order) Biden, Edwards, Dodd, Obama or Richardson. Only, sad to say, she will still be better than any likely Republican candidate. C'est la vie!

I am continuously amazed and dismayed that no one seems to recall that apparently the first of the Democratic candidates to call for laying off of Iran was Bill Richardson.

Richardson put this petition up way last spring -- http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/s/Iran

And this is from Richardson's policies page --

Use Tough, Patient Diplomacy
We need to stop treating diplomatic engagement with others like a reward for good behavior. The Bush administration's refusal to engage obnoxious regimes has only encouraged and strengthened these nations' paranoid and hard-line tendencies. The futility of this policy is most tragically obvious in regard to Iran and North Korea, who responded to Washington's snubs and threats with intensification of their nuclear programs.

And Iraq? He apparently is the only candidate who is calling for swift and complete withdrawal AND has outlined U.S. actions and efforts to help stabilize the country and region after the withdrawal. For that, see http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq

I just don't understand why Richardson's name seldom is mentioned in these remarks/debates. Anyone who reads the interviews with him that are here -- http://www.mytown.ca/ev.php?URL_ID=120989&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201 -- and continues to ignore the guy ain't thinkin' straight.

Wise up Americans: old news that's worth repeating: we have one party government in the USA. This fabulous one party is the party of the rich , which, in turn, has two branches–democrat and republican.

H. Clinton is a party of the rich candidate of the Democrats. As with all party of the rich candidates,Oil, Israel and Middle East Supremacy rules her thinking.

Kucinich, Gravel and a few others have opted out of the failed hegemony program of the monied class.

We used to have propertied men elect the president. Sadly, We still do.

What sexist epithet? The only name she was called is a "corporate whore" which she is. Whore is not masculing nor femine. I've known whores of both persuasions...

If you don't like the question, attack the questioner! Hilary didn't need a law degree to learn that one. And if she doesn't want to respond to a question that's been asked before, she shouldn't be campaigning, much less running the country. I think she needs a nap.

curmudgeon99: Good point! See this OPUS cartoon http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2007/08/12/opus/

nonamnesiac: See above....

Dems are "flocking" to Hillary? The MSM is framing the debate. The Repugs are also pushing for Hillary, just like they did LIEberman. She is one of them, but isn't going to let us know that unless she is elected. They all belong to the same party - the Corpratocraticans.

The longer she campaigns and the more votes she screws up in Congress, the more it will become an "anybody but Hillary" kind of a primary. DON"T buy into the MSM spin. She can be dethowned!

VOTE Kucinich in the primaries. And get your friends to do the same. It may be futile, but maybe not.....

As I have said elsewhere, even when the Dims win, they lose. Or, more precisely, progressive lose.

If the Rethugs had to choose a Dim president, it would be Clinton. Sure, they will go on with all this rhetoric about how she is "polarising" etc. but the truth is, she is not too different from the Rethug neo-con position.

There is no Dem more horrifying to Rethugs than Kucinich, but he has already been de-fanged by the Dims. He will not get the nomination. This is good news for the Rethugs & good news for the Dim leadership.

And there will be plenty of people who do not like Clinton & won't vote for her in the primaries, but they will when election time comes, because of the "OMG! We can't have Giuliani for president!" hysterics.

I'm sick of the spineless "If you vote for a third party, thats a vote for a Rethug" schtick. I say: a vote for the Dims is a vote for the Rethugs.

But 'Mericuns have a knack for wearing blinders.

~ Proud Unamerican

There's simply no excuse for Hillary to be so popular if progressives are serious about ending the war. Her thinking is obviously narrow, with the left being James Carville (who is nowhere near left) and the right being Bob Novak. Any thinking to the left of Carville or to the right of Novak she just rules out. That's how she can make the same vote on Iran five years later that she made on Iraq. Her omnipotenceness got the most important votes of her career wrong, yet progressives flock to her as some kind of agent of change.

The reality is that even progressives have a colonialist mentality and believe the latest lying rationale to keep the war going -- that a catastrophe of biblical proportions would occur if we left. That's always the excuse Whites use as to why they should must stay and rob the resources of the countries they occupy.

There is no debate from progressives regarding her Iraq vote. They whine to soothe their consciences and the vote for a warmongerer.

Okay, this and many comments on other stories have convinced me to support Dennis Kucinich for president. I just made a contribution to his campaign. His philosophy is the only one of the candidates that can lead to meaningful change in this country. Even though he is likely not to win the Democratic nomination, I feel it is important to support someone who is so much more closely aligned with my values than Hilary and the other candidates.

This whole thing is beginning to sound very hostile, lets see how many really put there "X" where it counts in the primary. Want to send a message? Vote anything but front runners. even third party would be better than following what you are told to do by the MSM.
It sure would be a "Pick Me Up" to see someone else . . . anyone jump forward except any front runner, from either Dem or Rep party.
Lord I hope so.

Vote DENNIS KUCINICH for US President for a return to decency, integrity, and common sense. He is our only choice. My choice for VP would be Barak Obama, or Cindy Sheehan, or Michael Moore. Together they and we would get the nation back on the right track. A vote for Clinton is a vote for more of the failed Reagan-Bush policies.

Hillbillary, W in drag.

I again ask - who is supporting her? I wonder who the pollsters are talking to. I've called all my friends in Iowa and, to a person, they will not vote for her and they know of noone who will, and theyare all Dems.

This is beginning to look a lot like 2004 primary time when Kerry came out of nowhere and blitzed the opposition to run everyone else off. His money came from strong Bush backers and he eventually ran his campaign as if he wanted Bush to win.

Could history be repeating itself?

A sage once opined that if the "end is justified so are the means". In the case of Ms. Clinton her stated "end" is to become President. In this context then any means is justified.

But then is that not a common practice. Yes it is. Its dubiousness comes into play when, as in this instance Ms. [manysided] Clinton poses as a true and principled individual.

To add insult to injury she thinks she is cute. In this regard only her husband knows for sure.

HILLARY CLINTON IS A BUSH IN HIGHHEELS.

So? Hasn't anyone ever seen an Israeli Republican before? She and Senator Joseph invested a lot of effort and taxpayer dollars flying off to Israel to discount Arafat (Nobel Peace Prize) and support Sharon (unindicted war criminal) the fruits of which we all saw on September 11th.

The Merchants of Death will be delighted with her 'election' as president.

Hillary is being "backed" by the Republicans, just like they backed LIEberman in Conneticut. There is no difference between the two. They belong to the same party as all the other sellouts. That party is the Corporacrats of Zion. Doesn't matter what letter comes after their name (D, R, I). It's all the same.

If it walks, talks, and looks like a duck, my guess is that its a duck. Same thing goes for warmongers.

Correction: Not only will Clinton not commit to being out of Iraq in her first term, none of the 3 Dimwit frontrunners will commit to being out of Iraq by the end of their second term (2013)! So, there you have it folks. All war all the time - forever!

Vote Kucinich in the primaries!! It's the only chance you get to "unthown" the queen!

PS: Can we lay off the sexist epithets when describing a female warmonger please?

Thanks

The DEMONcRATS will debate tonite on C-Span http://www.c-span.org, I think around 9:00,STARRING.....Shillary, Obamma-O-mamma,Deadwards and others. Tune in to see the backpeddling...tune in to hear the magic of the NEW doublespeak. Hell tune in to just watch DENNIS KUCINICH WIPE THE FLOOR WITH THEIR SORRY ASSES! He is the JFK of our time! Too bad he's one of them, he will be the last for me. Thanks for letting me rant. Texrey

Ken Mitchell: Gee, I thought the difference was Hillary would wear a dress in public....

I will never say that Hillary lost my vote. She never had my vote to begin with.

The dirty DEAMONcrats will be spewing for lies of fire and all will be clawing for

Any resemblence between Hillary Clinton, Democrat, and Dennis Kucinich, Democrat, is strictly through the accident of party affiliation.

However, the fix is in. She will be "elected" president in November '08 and take office in January '09, whether "we" vote for her or not.

She is a creature of the entertainment, insurance, retail and Internet technologies industries. They are bankrolling her and they will "elect" her.

What's the difference between Hillary and Lieberman? Lieberman ran as an Independent.

Not much of a difference between Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Both are controlled by the transnational corporations and the powerful pro-Zionist lobby. That means that they both are brainless and their "brain" is TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND THE PRO-ZIONIST LOBBY.

It is long due that Americans elect someone who has brains.

Media fails to advance presidential race narrative at Johnson County BBQ
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=9176

Clinton questioned about Iran in New Hapton
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=9179

An open letter to the frontrunners
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=9180

Identity politics and the presidential race
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=9187

As with republicans, actions speak louder than words. It's pretty simple. You can tell a good tree by the fruit it bears.

Hillary is just another completely corrupt enabler of the degenerate in the White House. To vote for her is to vote for perpetual war.

Many Dems assumed that Clinton regretted her Iraq vote altho she never apologized for that vote. Her vote for Leiberman-Kyl shows the falacy of that assumption. Even with the two paragraphs deleted it claims that Iran is a terrorist state and that is enough to allow Bush to twist it into an authorization to attack Iran. In addition, Clinton did not commit to withdrawing the troops in her first term. She is a hawk!! Where do you suppose the $22 million came from? If you want to stop the war, vote for Kucinich or Richardson. Richardson has the best resume by far!
Also, why didn't Pelosi allow a vote requiring Congress pass a direct authorization before attacking Iran?

Try Hillary for Crimes Against Humanity. She is just as guilty as Bush and Cheney.