I, too am disturbed by Russert's bringing up the UFO issue to Dennis Kucinich. I think it was retaliatory from the White House for introducing impeachment proceedings. This is shades of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Big media has usually been the tool of the right wing establishment. I think Russert had a lucky slide when he was not charged in the case of outing of a CIA agent. As for Senator Obama, he sure talks a great line. What disturbs me is that he manages to be out of town campaigning when important votes are needed at his real job in Washington, D.C. Even though I do not always agree with the way Senator Hillary Clinton votes, she is usually there doing her job and voting as she sees fit. So is Senator Dodd, Senator Biden and Rep. Kucinich. I do not feel that Senator Obama has a right to criticize a measure when he does not cast a vote for or against.

One of Obama's bigger voter problems tends to fall in the liberal forests of the democratic party. He appears to balance appealing to the left party while reassuring the DLC that he can attend their ballroom dance too. I tend to think this may be where Obama may appear to come off slow in regard to overtly denouncing torture in Chicago. Whereas, he did create IL Bills that would create a climate where getting away with torture in the future would be very difficult.

I also tend to think more votes come from WASPs than any one given voter block, and regardless of how "diverse" Americans like to portray ourselves, there is a reason George Bush was re-elected -- and it doesn't come down to just voter fraud. It also comes down to his appeal to a large portion of the US public. Do I agree this is acceptable? No. Do Americans think it is okay to attack Iran? Sadly, there are far more voting "okay, I guess so" than there are voting "are you out of your mind?!"

I mean to say, I try to understand why someone who is obviously as charismatic as Obama, as bright as Obama, and as measured (even if I think he is often unwilling to suffer the loss of pawns for a stronger move [chess analogy., -I view Flanders call as a reasonable example]) as Obama, would have ties to AIPAC members (see his finance wing of his election team), and why he would accept the new Army Field Manual on Counterinsurgency (see Gen Petr.) as a model for his foreign policy in his version of the "GWOT"? The field manual is not exactly liberal policy, nor is it novel, or forward thinking, but somewhere between 1950 and 1968...

just some quick ideas to throw out....
.
.
.

Happy Halloween (even if it's just another excuse to sell crap...heh.)!


SEQUOIABISON and David, answer me this:

Could a democrat commit to immediate withdrawal from Iraq and win the general election?

If so, then the fact that not a single candidate for their PRIMARY has assumed this posture means what, exactly? What the FUCK does it mean???

If not, why not? Is there good reason for thinking a real anti-war democrat couldn't win? Convince me of this and you'll begin to convince me that the democrats are indeed a better alternative.

SEQUOIABISON (Oct 31st, 11:14 am) writes, "It is a boldface lie that there is no difference between the two parties, this was the mantra of the egotistical Naderites ..."

- Revealingly, the braindead Dem Party loyalists who foam at the mouth about Nader always mis-state the argument. The claim is not that "there is no difference." Rather, it's that the Dems are collaborators with Repubs -- who, because they play a somewhat different role in the system, act & posture a bit differently.

During WWII, there was a "difference" between the Nazi occupiers of France, and the Vichy collaborators. There was a "difference" between Mussolini & Hitler. There is a "difference" between George W Bush and Ronald Reagan. There is a "difference" between an extremely sadistic concentration camp guard, and a guard who's only moderately sadistic. There's a difference between a wolf, and a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Nonetheless, in each case, what's far more significant is the similarity in each pairing. The Democrats are collaborators with Republicans -- essentially, Republicans in sheep's clothing, who talk a bit prettier. Both parties agree on 98% of everything that matters -- including corporatism, militarism, nationalism, & imperialism. The differences between them pale in comparison to the deep-seated similarities. In the deepest sense, they are partners with one another.

Obama won't swing at a pitch unless it's right down the middle and hanging there. Otherwise, he'll try to get a free pass. Hillary's a better hitter though.

I was very impressed with Obama during the debates last night. He has the intellect and the temperament to lead this country to greatness once again.

Unfortunately Tim Russert the obnoxious corpulent partisan moderator for the debate went out of his way to drive a stake thru the heart of the Kucinich campaign.

Quoting from a new book about to be released by the flamboyant, imaginative Shirley Maclaine he asks Kucinich about a UFO encounter he had.

This question was the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife" since there was no way he could answer this without sounding like a lunatic.

Which is what tubby the moderator had in mind all along. Ask the kooky congressman a ridiculous question that will help to contribute to his already laughable reputation.

Fatso Tim Russert had a lot of fun with that absurd question; of course it helped to further denigrate Kucinich as a serious candidate.

Well we all knew that the best person to replace the maniac in the white house was Kucinich but I am afraid that Mr. Russerts question has forever destroyed any chance he might have had to win the nomination or at least bring the democratic party a little more to the left.

Speaking of which, I think there are far too many people on Common Dreams who say they support the liberal candidate Kucinich but will not vote for any other democrat if he does not get the nomination.

Well if I were a democrat commenting on a conservative republican website I would do exactly what they are trying to do, tear away at any unity among the commentators.

It seems like a real ploy to me, pretend you support the most liberal candidate in the race and knowing he does not have a chance in hell to win, just say that if the progressive does not win, no other dem is worthy of our support.

This smacks of either a lying republican trying to divide us or a not too committed democrat.

It is a boldface lie that there is no difference between the two parties, this was the mantra of the egotistical Naderites and where did it get those protest voters, a very long distance from the philosophy of their candidate Nader.

At this point it makes no sense whatsoever to support a third party candidate unless they are showing significant winnable numbers in the polls.

But when national polls show that the Green Party candidate is only going to receive about 1 or 2 percent of the votes, isn't this info something they should be acting upon.

The third party supporters right now are delusional; they hide their heads in the sand and knowingly throw their vote away rather than vote for the person least likely to continue the war.

But I guess logic is not their strong suit otherwise we would not have that idiot in the white house. If the proud protest voters had even an ounce of intelligence, they would have realized that helping Nader was in essence helping Bush.

If these mindless voters had used some reasoning and did some homework before throwing away their votes, they would have known that Bush, based on his catastrophic record as a human being and as governor of Texas, was a very dangerous man and should not be given control of our country and command of our military.

But they would rather enable a mass murderer than to use their power of deduction and select the better of the two candidates who actually had a chance of winning.

To say that Gore was no better than Bush were the words of a fool who has not done his research.

Please ignore these effective republican operatives who keep slamming the democrats because they are not perfect but when you closely examine the record of the republicans it appears that they all support a war without end.

Vote Kucinich in the primaries.

Vote Obama over Hillary.

Vote Democratic in the General.

There is only one party D.C. and that is the Uncle Buck Party. Everyone back there is out to make a buck for themselves and to hell with everyone else. Obama is no different.
Hoa binh

Laura Flanders' whole schtick is about taking back the Democratic Party. Someone should gently explain that she's wasting her time.

To me, Obama has always seemed a carefully crafted media creation. He always has seemed to be just spouting what the focus groups tell his handlers will succeed. He has John Kerry's talent for speaking for a long time and giving a good impression while he talks, but then when the talk is done and you ask 'what did he say that was important?', you come up with nothing. That's because its all style and happy talk without any substance that challenges the system.

This nice article points out one detail of that. Obama gives the impression to minorities that things will be better if he's elected. But Ms. Flanders correctly points out with this article that there's no substance behind it. Obama wants to present himself as a political leader. So why doesn't he lead on an important human rights issue in his own home town? Why does anyone have to even ask? Why hasn't he been leading on this issue for years by now? If he was really a leader we could rely on to fight for human rights, he'd have been fighting hard on this issue for years even if he thought it might hurt his political chances. The fact that he hasn't been is very, very telling that he's a phony with a nicely crafted imaging instead of a real leader and fighter for human rights.

Another Democrat phony ... wow, just what we need!

Why would an expanded Democratic majority in the Senate do anything that the Democrats in the Senate won't do today? The one thing that is perfectly clear is that it makes no difference if a Democrat or Republican holds these seats. The fact that Obama won't do anything as a Senator today makes that plainly obvious.

All these committees are chaired by Democrats today. And the chairs of the committees have huge say in the agenda of the committee. Also, since those are largely done by seniority, electing more Democrats means that we'd have exactly the same committee chairs after the election as today.

So, if the committee chair won't hold impeachment hearings today, why would electing more Democrats change anything? If the committee chair won't investigate documented torture and misconduct by police officials today, why would electing more Democrats change anything?

We tried electing the Democrats. We can plainly see that didn't work. Insanity is repeating the same actions expecting a different result.

"You cannot believe that the problems we have can be solved by the people who created them"! I support Obama and Edwards. We don't need another "Brahman". The Brahman politicians have become superior and like a parent cannot listen to the people. We need impeachment hearings starting with Cheney. Remember that Agnew left before Nixon. We need to prosecute the crooks that we have so that they are not recycled back into other positions of power. M L Gulick

Personally, I believe that Obama is a man far better than the one we have in the Oval Office. I hate the attacks on Obama, and wish him well. I must admit to being a little hesitant about his candidacy to represent all Americans when Oprah, yes, I said Oprah endorsed him. Reason: I had heard talk that Oprah doesn't like Chicanos, expressly, Chicana women because the first time she heard the N word, it came out of the lips of some Mexican-American teenager in Oprah's youth (did they read it somewhere?). I only heard this once, and dismissed it, but then I started to watch her show in Chicago, and lo and behold it began to dawn on me that on Oprah, everything is black and white! Then she endorsed Obama, and I start to back away from him as a a viable candidate. What do I make of all of this? Well, he ain't Oprah, and Oprah has her own blindspots. I hope Obama lets us see who he is, and not just who is endorsing him.

There is already a candidate with the right positions on the issues. He has introduced legislation to end the war now, provide for universal, single payer, not for profit health care, and the impeachment of Dick Cheney for, among other things, approving torture.

That candidate's name is Dennis Kucinich. Support him. He is already there and there because of conscience, not because of political convenience.

We'd be fortunate indeed to have Barack Obama elected President of the United States. As for "A Senate Investigation Anyone?", as this author asks for, unless you at least retain, and preferably expand, the Democratic majority in the 2008 Congress, you'll find that Republicans won't have much interest in calling the kinds of "investigations" that matter to any real individual people going forward.

What a pathetic bunch of losers we have vying for the presidental ticket. It's not even an option of choosing the lesser of two evils this year. We are in a leadership crisis and have been for years. This latest crop of losers causes me to not even bother to cast a vote. So sad. Which corporation will win the White house in 09. Who really cares! Dennis and Ron probably dont have a snoballs chance in hell of getting anywhere. Alas!

He's just doing what his high paid handlers are telling him to do, just like Gore was. And you know where that got him.

Obama Be Bold: Drop out! Get some experience and sincerity like Kucinich before wasting our time and the media's drooling and gushing ink. Go to Hollywood where you'd have a much better fit as an actor. And, oh yeah, take the Hillary with you. With her ego and your "cute", you could be the next dynamic acting duo.