How convenient, Mr. Obama. Not that I think for a moment that 'the Southern Smoothie' wouldn't have done the exact same thing. The 3 Musketeers! At least Clinton doesn't try to hide the fact that SHE IS A HAWK of the first order.

Obama avoided that vote purposefully. He goes out of his way to be inspirational and convincing without actually committing himself to positions hoping to play all sides. He's a very intelligent media worker but he remains a mystery. I personally doubt he is much different than Clinton.

If Hillary is elected to one term we will have 24 years of either a Bush or Clinton leading this country. If she gets two terms it would be 28 years. Isn't it time for a better alternative?

Hillary is a complete neocon. She and Bill endorsed Lieberman in the last senate race. Lieberman wrote the last bill for the war against Iraq. And she endorsed it. He wrote this bill which she endorsed. Hillary was on the board of WalMart and assisted in the removal unions from both WalMart and Tyson Foods. Unions are the foundation for middle class America. She is anti-middle class. She receives compaign donations from Health Insurance Companies. She claims we have to include Health Insurance Companies in the negotations to establish Universal Medicine. Then it's not Universal Medicine. Why is she allowed to receive government sponsored healthcare. George W. Bush receives government sponsored healthcare. Yet the rest us do not. She received donations from Rupert Murdoch (FOX News). George W. Bush has announced that he feels she will be the likely Democratic candidate. The list goes on and on. There's just too much in the way of connection with this administration for Hilary to change course and suddenly take the American people's interest to heart.

>Obama avoided that vote purposefully. He goes out of his way to be inspirational and convincing without actually committing himself to positions hoping to play all sides.

Ugh, presidents...ok, here goes:

I'm not sure I "buy" Obama, but I'm skeptical of what you're saying here. For one thing, missing the vote in question makes sense to me - if the word was that the vote wasn't even close, make your position clear and move on if you don't have the time. You can't campaign from the beltway.

Also, there's a huge difference between being slippery and working to build a genuine consensus - not a Bill Clinton consensus where you hand-pick who is in the room and then say "gosh, we all agree" but working with people who you may not see eye-to-eye with, but pushing to find the core of decency underneath people's values and opinions, not just in theory, but in practice as well.

None of which to say that he adequately reflects my values (i'm definitely on the fence as far as that goes, for pretty much the reasons you cite) - but then again, the whole idea of presidents - namely, a king with limited powers and limited term - doesn't really reflect my values either. In some ways, the mess that we're in now is because of compromises that the more right wing founding fathers put forth over 200 years ago (read Howard Zinn for examples).

Who's funding her?

Watch. Too many dopey women (who claim to be liberal minded) are going to vote for her just because she's a woman... and the best part is Clinton is not going to represent nor protect women.

You're going to get a republican president in a democrat's disguise. But go ahead women, vote purely out of prejudice for another neo-conservative president. You remind me of the southern voters who vote themselves right into poverty, cutting off their noses to spite their face.

Mastershake:

I am a woman and all my woman friends are voting for John Edwards. I've researched Hilary Clinton prior to my choice of candidates and ruled her out. I expected more out of her and was quite disappointed. Bill Clinton at his time passed more Republican bills through Congress than any prior Republican President in U.S. History. He deregulated the FCC whereby we now have propaganda through the media networks.

Hillary Clinton is a danger to the United States and to the world. She is the most hawkish candidate by far. I understand that she promises more social programs for the less well off and that this is attractive to many such primary voters but she will continue to follow Bush's policies and I can't believe many who support her are as pro war as she is. There is still time for reflection. Please Iowa don't vote for more war and destruction.

People who submit to commondreams discussion blogs basically all have common interests. What one needs to do is submit articles, editorials, comments to editorials to the Newspapers in Iowa. Educate people who generally aren't exposed to this type of blogging. Sharing statistics, ideas and information with the Iowa people. This is when results will start to happen.

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.

Thank you BogusStory:

I wouldn't be surprised if the law firms that contributed were Insurance Defense/Corporate Law firms. 9% at the $200 tells me that very few average americans in comparison to corporate donors actually support Hilary and my theory of her receive predominantly corporate contributions and being a corporate candidate is correct. And that the media is trying to select her as the Democractic candidate for Presidency.

So John Edwards is the "Southern Smoothie?" What's Obama's nickname (I'm not even going to hazard a guess)? Obama has followed Edwards on many major positions, and now this one. Glad to hear from atruepatriot that her women friends have not been sucked into the Hillary vortex. I am not against a woman president, I just don't think Hillary is the right woman. I am from NH and will vote in the primary for Edwards.

Bogus Story

Or from Rupert Murdoch who hosted a fundraiser for her.

Thank you Max:

We too, have been looking at the issues. Edwards is a plaintiff's lawyer. We lost our son in tragic accident where several large corporations were negligent. Plaintiff's lawyers invest money out of their own pockets into litigation. They asked nothing from us upfront, without a guarantee of reimbursement. It costs them $100,000 of dollars to litigate, with no guarantees. It keeps corporations in line from abusing the people Having been exposed to this firsthand. My heart is with Edwards.

atruepatriot:

Good for you for pointing that out. Overall, among progressive female voters, she is actually more disliked than by male voters. This will only get worse, as long as she keeps up with that condescending laugh and her ridiculous votes.

About Obama: I was lucky enough to be in the audience this past weekend when Obama spoke to nearly 800 UAW members, and I have to tell you that as a real skeptic, I was totally blown away! That man can speak! And he totally understands the role labor absolutely MUST play in the coming years. Don't write him off yet. It is still early, and I actually believe he is going to step up to the plate in a big way in the coming weeks. If he begins to speak on television the way he spoke this weekend, Hillary is dead in the water, because she couldn't speak with that kind of fire if her life depended on it.

Lastly, he didn't show up to that vote, because he didn't need to. People, every politician of every kind strategically misses votes, and it usually has to do with the fact they their particular vote would not influence the outcome. Furthermore, he DID issue a statement effectively saying he disagreed with the vote. So he clearly would have voted opposite to Clinton.

The man isn't perfect, and he never will be. But he is definitely not Hillary Clinton! He is flexible on his health care plan - read: he will alter it if the voters think he needs to - he believes that NAFTA has to at least be "significantly ratified", and believes in keeping jobs in the United States and building new jobs. These are huge issues that he is on the correct side on. Kucinich is indeed the perfect candidate, but let's face it, he just doesn't have a chance at this point. If things change, hell yes, vote for him. But if they don't, vote for Obama and then lobby for Kucinich to have a cabinet position, so that he can run successfully again in later years.

If you don't vote for your perfect candidate because you think they can't win you have basically sold your vote to the media and the extremely flawed polling sytem. Way to go! Have you ever heard of the scenario where a person is in grave danger with many people around able to help, but noone does because everyone assumes someone else will. Same thing. Nobody votes for the best candidate because everyone assumes they can't win.

Of course this undermines the real problem with the primary process, which is that you can only pick one person. How fair is this? It would be much better if you were able to give 1 vote to every candidate you feel is acceptable. This way, if %50 of the democrats feel Hillary is the best, %25 feel Obama, and %25 feel Edwards, but the %50 supporting Obama and Edwards do not give a vote to Hillary, she won't win.

Kind of like a large mixed group of people deciding on Beef, Chicken, or Fish for dinner. Beef will probably get the most votes if only given one choice, but I bet the far majority would not have any problems with chicken while vegetarians and ethnicities averse to eating beef end up going hungry.

Better yet, give a vote for each person from -1 to 1. 1 you want them, 0 you don't care, -1 you don't want them.

atruepatriot,

you bet your ass Kucinich is the perfect candidate. And the primary is not the time to bet on who, thanks to the corporate media, is going to be the nominee. The primary is the time to EFFECT the outcome by voting for the best leader. And that, my friend, is Kucinich. Watch the recent Judy Woodruff/ Jim Leher interview if you don't believe me.

Here's that Kucinich interview...many people came up to my Kucinich table at a recent bluegrass festival who had seen this and were so impressed that they donated money and took pins and bumper stickers. They were indignant that he wasn't given more respect by the media, considering his superior positions and leadership ability:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1AhaH1ozbg

On October 7, 2001, after less than a month of investigation, the US launched an attack on Afghanistan to "get Bin Laden dead or alive". This was a sham because the 9/11 attacks were self orchestrated.

On March 20, 2003, after failing every objective of the Afghanistan conflict, the US launched an attack on Iraq to "disarm Saddam Hussein's huge stockpile of chemical weapons and stop his nuclear weapon ambitions". This was a sham also because he didn't have any weapons.

In November 2004, bush was re-elected because of his excellent leadership and brilliant military strategery.

Now we are targeting Iran. This time the sham is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to construct nuclear weapons. It has already been proven false by the IAEA but that doesn't matter. Iran is supposedly funneling weapons to Iraq as well. The fact that we 'lost' 150,000 machine guns of our own has nothing to do with it. The claim has already been proved baseless but again it doesn't matter. America is apparantly made up of a bunch of greedy, uneducated, intolerant, gullible morons.

It's sad that we have sunk to this level. Thank you Mr. bush for your outstanding leadership.

Hillary Bush is just George W in a bad dress

Barak O'Cheney is another missing in action man of mystery.

Hillary, like most of the Senate, is a whore, the details of which have been aptly described above by members of the CD community. What struck me about the article was ABC's use of quotes to describe progressive radio, which I suppose is something entirely alien to those folks and completely beyond their comprehension. They only speak mainstream, you know, MSMspeak. But we're out here, us progressives, with numbers swelling everyday. Watch out MSM, one of these days progressive ("") radio is gonna smack you up side the head.

Kucinich, Nader, and many of the columnists and commenters at CD would make better presidents than any of the frontrunners. But the chance of any of them getting elected is virtually zero, as the oligarchy has many lines of defense (e.g. campaign funding, corporate media, vote counting machines, ...) to use against someone outside the accepted narrow range (Edwards even appears to be outside it after those ridiculous haircut stories).

If you think a vote for Edwards or Obama or any candidate with any reasonable chance is a wasted vote, then maybe your time would be better spent on working for solutions that have little or nothing to do with voting, rather than on quixotic political campaigns.

Oops........Barack Obama should not have missed that vote! I am an Obama supporter, but I want to see him take a clearer, more definitive stance on foreign policy issues--particularly concerning possible pre-emptive strikes, i.e., Iran!

Please, Mr. Obama, speak out!

There may have been a time when, no matter the expected outcome it was a matter of priciple to have your vote, your determination, registered in the official record of the Congress. The Wicked Witch of the East thought it important enough to have her vote recorded. Obama did not. Why? Because he has no principles other than the one that tells him to look good and get elected. Well, here's a clue Obiwan Brakmana - IT DOES FUCKING MATTER!

I'd like to get behind you bro' 'cause I can't stand that witch, but with every move you make you tell me YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!

I posted this same thought several months ago: If you really want to show us how you will lead, get your ass to Washington and do the job you've been elected to do, the one you promised to do.

Otherwise, just shut up, pack it up, and get the hell out of my face. Your "strongly-worded statement of opposition" doesn't amount to a fart in a windstorm if you won't go and CAST THE VOTE.

Who is advising this fool?

Karl Rove a few months ago said that his biggest concern was Edwards for the next election. If a haircut is the biggest thing they can get on him. Well, the man must be squeeky clean. Unfortunately, if Hillary gets the nomination she will select General Wes Clark who stance has changed and now is to remain in Iraq, and said it was a mistake for Israel to pull out of Lebanon and the statements were very pro-Zionist. I listened to the interview on the Stephanie Miller show yesterday morning. That triggered a sign that he will be selected as Hilary's running vice president. They will lose to Guiliani because the election will be close. Thereby allowing the electronic voting machines to adjust the votes to Guiliani's favor. Edwards numbers running against the Republican candidates are the highest of all the contenders in the straw polls in Missouri, Oregon, Texas and a couple of other states. So it would be more difficult to rig that situation. Unfortunately, Obama is too inexperienced and made a few comments that shows that he is a little "green." I believe he will mature and be outstanding someday, but don't believe this is the time. Truly, the country is at stake. If we go to war with Iran which Hilary supports and the Republicans support. Our country will suffer economic depressions like one has never seen. This truly is the most critical election of our time. Kucinich is great, but unfortunately will not get elected. He is not "presidential" enough. Even though I can't argue with his statements, they have all been correct. He will not win the majority of Americans unfortunately. We are a country of Hollywood glamour, and are impressed with a certain "presence." Kucinich does not have that quality. I've been analyzing and studying all the candidates, and still believe Edwards is the most likely one to win on a strong margin.

atruepatriot:

"Truly, the country is at stake. If we go to war with Iran which Hilary supports and the Republicans support. Our country will suffer economic depressions like one has never seen. "

Spoken like a true patriot - as in no mention of the murder of how many thousands of innocent Iranians for the sake of a pack of lies.

If y'all have not figured it out yet, Obomber is an empty suit.

We need a woman as President. We need a person of color as President. Just NOT those two!!

atruepatriot--it sounds like you are mesmerized by the Hollywood glamour and "presence" of Edwards. That's a pretty shallow basis on which to choose a candidate. Maybe Kucinich doesn't have those qualities, but neither did Abe Lincoln. We deserve better.
KUCINICH IN '08.

It's really very simple...The Democrats were voted into office to stop the current spiral of our nation in the wrong direction, and point it in a new prosporous direction. They've not only failed in every aspect to stop the nation from spiralling in the wrong direction, they've ACTIVELY contributed to continuing that spiral that will eventually run our country into the ground.

That is why you cannot vote for them in 2008. You think you're just going to get change, but you are going to get duped again. We were tricked and strung along by their propoganda in 2006, I for one am not going to let it happen again... Are you?

And moreover Hillary and Obama in the senate have shown NO leadership WHATSOVER in standing up to this president's misguided policies, and leading the congress in checking executive power. What makes anyone think they're going to lead a nation when they can't even lead their own party, half of congress?

Grandpa used to say to us kids as we sat around his dinner table on Sunday afternoons, "don't ever trust politicians, they are all thieves and liars". We quietly humored him, politely waited for him to finish his rants, then went outside to play.

I've never forgotten those words and don't expect politicians to prove Grandpa wrong.

The Democrats and Republicans are the left-wing and the right-wing, respectively, of Likud, slaves of AIPAC. The American people are not going to win with either of these two.

atruepatriot,

You say Kucinich doesn't have the "presence", or seem "presidential" enough.
Seriously? Is this really your assessment after hearing his radio interview with Ed Schultz? How about his television interview with Judy Woodfuff?

I'd like to gently suggest that you have bought into a corporate media myth that has no actual basis in reality.

In fact, Kucinich would be the most electable candidate in the general election.

He is consistant in his positions. He articulates a clear alternative to the neo-con agenda in the Middle East, not just a verbal repudiation of their foreign policy. He clearly has integrity. He has the guts to stand up to health insurance companies. He can get Reagan Democrats because he has his anti-NAFTA credentials. He can get votes from people that have been so disappointed by the system that they don't normally vote. The list goes on. The only thing he doesn't have..and it's a big one..is a media that will treat him like the contender that he is. The corporations that own the media don't like his policies. It's just about that simple.

www.ontheissues.org
This is an excellent resource to know what the candidates are doing and voting on.
Edwards clearly isn't the man for the job.
He voted to fund the construction of a 700 mile fence between the US and Mexico.
He believes that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a tyrannical leader who needs to be isolated from his people.
He believes that "America is in danger" from Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah or whoever and the "War On Terror" must be fought.
These clearly uninformed, baseless views disqualify him for that type of leadership. If Edwards is elected, he will be corrupted by his own power.

Clearly the only candidate that voted against the war, against the stupid fence, and is de-escalatory toward Iran is Dennis Kucinich. He's actually the only one of the candidates that has enough wisdom and foresight to even begin to lead this country. I can't understand why any of the others are being considered.

Terran: exactly. Watched BO come backstage after he addressed the 2004 Democratic Convention. He was all about Obama. "How did I do?" "How did I look?" Not even a nod towards the message he had just "delivered."

Beam me up Scotty, this planet is breaking up.

TheLorax: Kucinich has and always will be my choice, but he won't be on the ballot for the election. I will, nonetheless, write him in. I'm not carrying any more water for any of those corporate animals.

I'd like to vote Green, but I've not seen much movement on the presidential race there.

So instead I may vote for whoever I believe to be the least competent of the two pre-selected MSM candidates. If we're getting corruption either way, it might as well be inefficient.

One more big reason why Kucinich is more electable than Clinton, Obama, and Edwards in the general election:

Kucinich articulates an ALTERNATIVE to the neo-con policy/intention/attitude towards the Middle East. He talks about the privitization of Iraq's oil and explains why it must stop. He doesn't just verbally repudiate the neo-con agenda, but then offer no consistent alternative vision.

We really need someone sure-footed on this, or we'll be at war with Iran next, and who knows what's after that...

The main issue is IRAQ! So I say to OBAMA

GO! BARACK! BARACK! OUT! OF IRAQ! IRAQ!

Yes, Yes, Yes!

atruepatriot,

you bet your ass Kucinich is the perfect candidate. And the primary is not the time to bet on who, thanks to the corporate media, is going to be the nominee. The primary is the time to EFFECT the outcome by voting for the best leader. And that, my friend, is Kucinich. Watch the recent Judy Woodruff/ Jim Leher interview if you don't believe me.

Stop listening to the media as if it were free or "liberal." Coax more of your friends and coworkers to include alternative media sources. Kucinich or even Robert Kennedy Jr. need to make their voices heard through the primary season.

The question needs to be asked by us over and over again, in all variations, is how do we effect change? We must redirect our efforts and resources. Can we get some mass movement to open up the media to Kucinich? How can we get the media to ask, "What is Kucinich's view on that?" "How do you distinguish yourself from Kucinich?" We need solutions to this! I'm sending email suggesting readings to all of my friends. Then I am going to work on my groups. What else?

It strikes me as funny that so many on CD correctly conclude that Bush and Cheney are silly evil fools because they cannot possibly succeed in X or Y because of all the forces aligned against them and at the same time they claim that Kucinich can succeed when even greater forces are aligned against him. How can so many be so rational in analyzing the difficulties their enemies face but then suspend all disbelief when considering the obstacles in the path of their friends? A bit of wishful thinking? Wishful thinking is all fine and dandy, but one should be careful when one derides such behavior in others while openly engaging in it without reservation.

Of course our votes make a difference, but let us not delude ourselves into thinking the votes of a few of us on CD will make all that much difference. Some actions by a few can make a great difference, but voting is not one of them (though the oligarchs appreciate it when the "little people" buy into the ultimate importance of voting, which of course would not be allowed if the outcomes were not tightly controlled).