But Tony, with all that said, why say that liberals will still vote for HC. Sorry, but I am a lifelong Democrat, (age 61) and I will not vote for Hillary, because I value my conscience too much. We have nothing but sham opposition from the Democratic Party's leadership, and with a few individual notable exception in each house, they have continued to be complicit in destroying our Constitution, our reputation, and our dreams. Lesser of two evils does not cut it anymore for me. It only perpetuates the illusion of choice. Building a viable alternative is the only option left for our citizens. I refuse to give up, but I also refuse to play the rigged game any longer. It's just prolonging the inevitable slide into absolute corporatism, which has been apparent for a long time now. We were screaming about the holes in the safety net under Reagan, and how much of that safety net is left today?

Thank you,thank you,thank you! Tony

"Lesser of two evils does not cut it anymore for me. It only perpetuates the illusion of choice. Building a viable alternative is the only option left for our citizens. I refuse to give up, but I also refuse to play the rigged game any longer."

Awesome! Thanks for putting it so eloquently starofthesea!

I was looking forward to Hillary's candidacy a year or two ago. But reality has hit me in the face.
She has apparently adopted John Kerry's playbook and become a two-faced fence sitter talking out of both sides of her mouth and refusing to take anything but nuanced stands on many of the issues. Many times have such candidates failed (remember Hubert H. Humphrey in '68?).
Hillary has a good chance of going the same way as Kerry because many of us realize that voting for the lesser of two evils is illogical and invites surrender and retreat, and also that voting for someone you don't believe in is the ultimate wasted vote.
So what's left to do? Write in Al Gore, the guy who picked Libermann for a running mate? Vote Nader? Emigrate? How do you break the duopoly facilitating our corporate dictatorship?

Thanks, Ted. More people need to get a grasp on what exactly it is that Hillary does stand for. Her platform is pretty rickity, full of holes and the only thing really holding her up is her corporate funding and her loving main stream media. Without it she doesn't have much going for her. I will vote for a woman for president when one comes along without any baggage and one who has the guts to buck the system. It may be a while.

That's just great. With the Republican Party fully imploding and fielding unelectable candidates, what are liberals and progressives stuck with? A "Democratic" neocon named Hillary. Hillary Clinton, the best establishment candidate, darling of corporations and the military-industrial complex.

You know she's going to want to make her bones.

The only thing that will change if Hillery gets in the White House is that her husband will have access to interns again.
Hoa binh

starofthesea...outstanding post! I too am a 61 y/o former Democrat.

As you so correctly put it "Lesser of two evils does not cut it anymore..." The evil has become so profound, so widespread, so accepted and so large, that to be merely lesser of two evils today is still to be very, very evil.

Proof? The very real possibility of Rudy Giuliani vs Hillary Clinton. The horror, the horror!

For us the rigged game is over, the lesser of two evils is STILL evil, the Democrats (or should I say Vichycrats) are useless, Reid, Pelosi et.al are a disgrace.

I know we will hear that "the system isn't perfect, the dems aren't perfect, we have to make sensible choices and the perfect is the enemy of the good."

Well, the "lesser of two evils" is also the enemy of the good and it has lead us to the place we are today. Of course, that place isn't perfect. It isn't even Good and it keeps getting worse!

The 'lesser of 2 evils' proposition sucks but in this case the future of the supreme court is up for grabs. Three liberal justices are waiting to retire in the next term. Any dem elected will replace them with liberals. The rumor is that HRC will appoint Obama to scotus.

peace

Focusing on Hillary makes me too depressed, so I focus on Giuliani, the most despicable creature to ever crawl out from under a disaster that he helped worsen. If voting for the Wall Street witch Hillary will hurt Giuliani, I will do it, no matter how much I despise her. However, if Hillary is the Dem nominee and the Republican nominee is anyone other than Giuliani, it is third party for me all the way.

lvrich wrote: How do you break the duopoly facilitating our corporate dictatorship?

I don't know how to break the corporate dictatorship, but there are a couple ways to break the duopoly:

1. Amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College, or at least get rid of the winner-take-all system so minor party candidates have a chance at showing up on the electoral map, and major party candidates have a reason to campaign in states that they won't win majorities in.

2. Amend the Constitution to change Congress. Small states want the Senate to stay as it is, and voters will want to keep constituency representation in the House of Reps so they have their own pork barrel advocates, but how about adding a 100-seat 3rd house that represents parties? The Founding Fathers didn't want political parties, but they have become a fixture in our lives. You could write it so that bills had to pass all 3 houses or 2 of the 3. You could set a 3%, 5% or 10% threshhold to keep the electorate from splintering too much. It would take several election cycles for voters to give minor parties a serious look, but I bet the Greens could get 5% by drawing off Democratic votes and the Libertarians by drawing off Republican votes. There would probably also be a "Christian America" party or something to represent the Focus on the Family and white-supremacist types. The rest would be Democratic and Republican, or they might merge their corporate wings in this house as the "Prosperity" party.

Well, it's fun to think about these things even though I have no way of getting them on the national agenda.

If you continue to vote as if there are only two choices you will absolutely ensure that you will only have two choices. If you continue to offer support to those who do not deserve it, they will do nothing to become deserving of your support. You're slitting your own throat (and mine!) by voting for the "lesser" evil.

Speaking of lesser evil, how exactly are we quantifying that? By votes? Votes matter, but they aren't the end-all-be-all simply because they can be manipulated to achieve an untrue appearance. Quantifying evil by deeds done, they don't seem all that "lesser" anymore. In fact, given the painful small number of filibusters that they attempted while the Republicans were in power, and the utter lack of progress (in fact, regression has occured) since THEY'VE been in power themselves, I would think that deeds done can be the ONLY effective measure of 'evil'.

And realizing that, I shake my head at how grand and overwhelming a thing called "lesser" may be.

Do the right thing, vote for policies, not politics.

I understand the author's use of "forgiveness" as the vehicle to itemize Hillary's vast betrayals, deceptions, failures on all levels excepts for that power broker sponsorship. The problem for me is not that she shouldn't be forgiven, rather her character is such that she doesn't think she has anything to apologize for. You know, AIPAC demands that she take their position--and even though we are constantly told that Americans Jews don't support the invasion of Iraq, why then, in order to pander to NY Jews, does Hillary align herself with the NeoCon agenda? I can't get an answer on this because the subject is taboo--but I do get alot of hate mate accusing me of being an antisemitic bigot.

Counterpunch.org has done some good research articles on Hillary Clinton, detailing that she served on the board of directors of Wal-mart, and currently receives the financial support of Wal-mart executives. She interned with Republican office holders, and as a lawyer advocated against the progressive low-income community organization ACORN in the interest of big money. Her health care proposals are very pleasing to the rapacious pharmaceutical industry. And she evidently intends to wage war on as much of the world as possible for the rest of her career....

In my view, especially with Clinton, Republicans can constantly attack, throwing red meat to the worst instincts of their base support, encouraging all ferocity and ignorance, while behind the scenes being glad that Clinton supports nearly everything they do. She's a better public face for their savage attacks. And so they get to bash her for PR reasons while surreptitiously cheering her on to their increased power and wealth.... At least for the time being, she's the ideal DemRep candidate, and so the money and corporate publicity flows to her.

Two points:

• It's one thing to tinker around the edges, but the dilemma in proposing long-overdue and eminently meritorious reforms is that it requires the cooperation and support of the duopoly which it seeks to undermine. The politicians, and interlocking corporate (media), military, and financial interests represent a vast elite which is essentially satisfied with the status quo.

I know that politicians can support election reforms, and that reforms have in fact been made during the course of history. But I don't see a big initiative among existing politicians to shake up the rules in a way which might damage their fragile security.

Put another way, during my lifetime I have witnessed a corporate zeitgeist complete its infiltration into politics; to repeat a trivial example I've used elsewhere, even the "rebranding" of public offices such as "Superintendent of Schools" becoming "CEO" is an indication of corporations implementing the fantasy of civilization and daily life put entirely on a business footing. Thus, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has been replaced by "money talks, bullshit walks".

Stand on principle; trade on value. IMO, the incipient wheeler-dealer businessman that is part of every successful politician has taken control, and the tiny part once devoted to regard for principle-- they call it the "soul", or "conscience", I think-- has atrophied and in most cases sloughed off entirely.

The unspeakable Republic Party is already the Unitary State Party for the Unitary Executive. But the Vichy Democrats, from Mother Superior Pelosi on down, have devolved into full-time technocrats; their priority is managing individual (campaign) and revenue (legislative) funds. Their role is much more like corporate executives or high-stakes stockbrokers than statesmen or political leaders. Principles-- for instance the responsible execution of solemn constitutional duties-- are bad for business and gum up the works. They've become "quaint".

(Even Barney Frank, long one of the good guys, has taken to snapping over his shoulder at kibitzers, dismissing calls for impeachment and equal rights as so much noise. "What's trumps?" is all Barney wants to know, so he can at least win a pot or two for the folks at home.)

So I don't see the self-serving, self-perpetuating incumbents or wannabes being big enough to support reforms of a status quo that got them where they are.

• I still can't come to terms with a position I encounter over and over, although I recognize it as an implicit commitment to lesser-evilism. Over and over, I read pointed and often damning criticisms of Hillary from self-identifed Democrats, mostly also self-identified progressives. The comments may not be as comprehensive as Rall's, but they're unapologetically scathing-- and accurate, IMO.

Then the person ends by writing: Oh, if she's the nominee I'll support/work for/vote for her. But I'm just saying...

I know that this is merely a statement of faith, but I feel a jarring disconnect. Because this almost obligatory ending, which loyal Democrat after loyal Democrat seems obliged to include, is a jarring contrast to the lucid, reasoned criticism.

It's like watching a physics professor deliver an elegant lecture on The Law of Gravity, then abruptly conclude by exiting out the tenth-floor window. Tough to reconcile within oneself.

"Liberals will vote for her if she's the nominee."

Don't put a lot of money on that, Ted!

Various people on various posts have been calling for a strike as protest. Well, the time to "strike" may be on election day 2008. ESPECIALLY, if the choices are Clinton vs. Giuliani. (The evidence of election-rigging would then be undeniable.) But, as I've said in posts before, how the hell do you get people to stand together for ANTHING?!

Not only is there safety in numbers, but there is also POWER in numbers. If only....

boyleebob, The Supreme Court is in the shape it is in because the Dems refused to challenge the last two stolen presidential elections and in the senate, refused to filibuster the nomination of two more idealogues, Roberts and Alito. We won't even get into how Clarence Thomas and Scalia got in way back when. Please, stop looking for the Democratic cavalry to come riding over the hill to save us all. Can you say without a shred of a doubt they will get liberal appointed to the Supreme Court? Do you know how long it's been since we've had that happen? And don't forget, Rethugs aren't the least bit afraid to use filibuster against your hypothetical liberal appointees. Wake up and smell the coffee. We do not have a two part system, haven't really had it in my lifetime.

Several excellent posts here, beginning with Ted's.

Boy, the big question is, what to do about it?? I'm open to suggestions...

One idea would be for everybody to support a single alternative candidate in the primaries. If all the Democrats who are not thrilled with Hillary supported the same opposing candidate, we'd have a pretty close race. The trouble is that there are a bunch of candidates, and on many levels the so-called "front-runners" aren't all that much different. They tend to offer different shades of the same triangulated DLC double-speak on most issues.

So another approach would be to vigorously support the candidate who is the most unlike Ted's description of Hillary, above, the person who contrasts most sharply with the bought-and-paid-for corporate candidate.

And that would be Dennis Kucinich.

I know DK can't win. But if all of us who find Hillary so distasteful were to rally around DK and bring his support up to a respectable level (say the mid-teens), then the MSM and the rest of the party would have to take some note. Maybe he wouldn't be dismissed as a "nutjob" by everybody, including his own party. Kucinich is a little odd, but the man speaks truth to power and I find I agree with him 90% of the time. I can't say that about any other candidate. (Who else advocates single payer healthcare, Medicare for all? And who can argue that that wouldn't be the best solution?)

I've thought long and hard about this problem, when it comes to the general election. No way am I voting for the Republican nominee, and no way am I staying home on election day -- I feel it's my duty to vote, even if I have to hold my nose while I'm doing it. And on the national level -- that is, for President -- I now feel it is just too dangerous to vote for a third-party candidate. No one can convince me that Nader didn't make the difference in Florida in 2000 (seriously, please don't even try), and no one can convince me that there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between Al Gore and George W. Bush. It actually matters who wins.

So what's a progressive to do? First, support the most progressive candidate in the primaries. That's Dennis Kucinich -- the candidate most unlike Hillary Clinton.

-- ARG

Impeach Bush and Cheney and Pelosi becomes President. Then she can run for election as the incumbent.

Who needs Clinton?

Keep impeachment moving forward. Force Pelosi to act in her own self-interest.

"why then, in order to pander to NY Jews, does Hillary align herself with the NeoCon agenda?" To Vern and others who equate AIPAC with Jews in general: Most Jews are liberal or progressive.AIPAC is supported by a very small contingent of power-mad or obsessive Jews and conservatives alike,not by the rank and file, if you will. Your question makes a wrong assumption and betrays ignorance if not bigotry.

I agree whole heartedly with Ted's reasons not to vote for HRC. It does however piss me off to no end that she has been dubbed the "front runner" in an election in which not one single vote has yet to be cast. All I can say is get out and vote against her in the primaries, I would prefer just about any of the other Dims to Hillary, though I am not sure I could vote for any of them besides Kucinich.

A perhaps hopeful alternative. www.Unity08.com

If the election comes down to a choice between Hillary and one of the neo-Fascist wind-up toys the Goppies are offering, my thought process would go as follows:
1. This country is screwed.
2. What else is on the menu?
3. I guess I'll throw my vote away on some 3rd party empty-suit.

But what I'd really like to see is Dennis Kucinich run as a Green. His policies are a better fit with the Greens than the Demmies. In fact , I don't know why he bothers to stay with the Dems, who probably wish he would just go away.

So have Dennis run as a Green; he probably will lose, but I could at least vote without having to hold my nose.

Yeah but Hillary is Wall Street's Great White Hope. That's why Bob Rubin was tapped to head Citibank--to arrange a bailout as he did for hedge funds as Treasury Secretary. He'll have plenty of campaign contributions at the ready. The Citibank board is gambling on a Hillary victory.

You will have someone to vote FOR, because the Greens will run someone. We don't know who, yet, anymore than the other parties (except the Dems - they've already decided, for you), but it's looking like a very good year.

A quote from Matt Taibbi, a Democrat, interviewed on Brad Blog: "If it comes down to Hillary versus Giuliani, the Green Party could run Big Bird and get 28% of the vote." Kermit the Frog would be better, but I do appreciate the thought.

And thank you, Ted Rall. Excellent, as always.

hamster:"Most Jews are liberal or progressive.AIPAC is supported by a very small contingent of power-mad or obsessive Jews and conservatives alike,not by the rank and file, if you will."

Yes. I would think at this writing many, indeed, would be alarmed by the growing resemblance of the neo-con movement to 1930s Fascism.

Evangelical Christians actually seem to be in the forefront as supporters of the neo-con and AIPAC agenda. Note Pat Robertson's endorsement of socially liberal neo-con Rudy Guiliani.

militantliberal November 7th, 2007 2:49 pm

"1. Amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College,

2. Amend the Constitution to change Congress."

IMO tinkering with the Constitution is what has gotten us in trouble. At one time there was supposed to be a Representative for every thirty thousand citizens. That is until Congress in the early 1900's decided to limit it to 435 House Members permanently. When they only had thirty thousand people to be beholden too they were a lot more responsive to the needs and wants of their constituents.

The second way would be to limit campaign funding to a Congressman's district rather allowing everyone to donate to their campaigns based on what committee they sit on. If they couldn't get money outside their own 30,000 member district most if not all of the corruption would end.

Lobo Gris

I never read much about Instant Runoff Voting here.
It is getting a lot of attention here in Vermont, and was used in Burlington.

How Instant Runoff Voting Works: IRV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference (i.e. first, second, third, fourth and so on). Voters have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish, but can vote without fear that ranking less favored candidates will harm the chances of their most preferred candidates. First choices are then tabulated, and if a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected. If nobody has a clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoffs are simulated, using each voter's preferences indicated on the ballot. The candidate who received the fewest first place choices is eliminated. All ballots are then retabulated, with each ballot counting as one vote for each voter's highest ranked candidate who has not been eliminated. Specifically, voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate will now have their ballots counted for their second ranked candidate -- just as if they were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election -- but all other voters get to continue supporting their top candidate. The weakest candidates are successively eliminated and their voters' ballots are redistributed to next choices until a candidate crosses a majority of votes.

Instant runoff voting allows for better voter choice and wider voter participation by accommodating multiple candidates in single seat races and assuring that a "spoiler effect" will not result in undemocratic outcomes. IRV allows all voters to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of helping elect their least favorite candidate, and it ensures that the winner enjoys true support from a majority of the voters. Plurality voting, as used in most American elections, does not meet these basic requirements for a fair election system that promotes cost-saving elections with wider participation.

This comes from the website
http://www.fairvote.org

This is probably the last, best hope for reforming our process, or taking it back. It is not a difficult process, anyone can learn to use it. It is not some off the wall, liberal thing....it's used sucessfully in other countries. It can be implemented at the local level.
Think about it.

ARG in Chicago November 7th, 2007 6:14 pm

"No one can convince me that Nader didn't make the difference in Florida in 2000 (seriously, please don't even try)"

OK, I won't. Far be it from me to try to confuse someone with the facts if they don't want to hear them.

Lobo Gris

Lobo, all I'm saying is that I've heard all the arguments, many, many times, and the math simply doesn't add up.

Looking forward, which is what matters, if those posting here (who aren't thrilled about Hillary) all decide to vote for the Green party candidate, that will likely result in the election of President Guiliani. Can the country survive four more years (possibly eight) of this same neocon crap?? I don't think so.

If Kucinich were to run on the Green party ticket, I would be tempted. But I think I would stick to the Democratic nominee, as the most effective way to vote "NOT the Republican".

Maybe, if we're lucky, the right wing religious goofballs will run a 3rd party candidate, and split the vote on that side. In that case, in a 4-candidate race, I might re-consider.

-- ARG

ARG in Chicago November 8th, 2007 6:56 am

"Looking forward, which is what matters, if those posting here (who aren't thrilled about Hillary) all decide to vote for the Green party candidate, that will likely result in the election of President Guiliani. Can the country survive four more years (possibly eight) of this same neocon crap?? I don't think so."

Sorry but I don't buy the lesser of two evils argument. We've already been there and done that in 2006. If they want my vote they have to earn it. That means nominating Kucinich, impeaching the two biggest crininals to ever hold office in the executive branch, and ending the war in Iraq.

Lobo Gris

Those who will still vote for Hillary to defeat the repug while vociferously condemning alternative candidates are part of the problem. It's a rigged game that leads to fascism plain and simple. I guarantee that if Clinton "wins," when the attacks on her from the right start, the attacks from the left will all but disappear and the military/corporate aganda will have easy going.

I'd rather have an authentic Giuliani than a dem that isn't really much different,

Either we unite behind a progressive alternative or we cast blank ballots in mass. I know I won't be voting for Clinton.

Why even talk about Hillarity.

We're completely messed up - gotta return to the basics - the constitution.

Ron Paul is the only person running who will work for that.

I am very much to the left politically of Ron Paul, don't like everything he has to say, but we must return to the constitution if we are to avoid Germany's fate at the end of WW2 or worse.

A vote for anyone else is just another vote for fascism,

We are right, we are left, we are "we the people", we are patriots,..join us -or- stare at that demented gargoyle smile of Hillary's for 4-8 long years. The choice is yours.

Dennis Kucinich keeps a copy of the Constitution of the United States in his pocket. Does Ron Paul?

Dennis Kucinich has also stood up for the impeachment of Dick Cheney.

Dennis Kucinich is a winner and I will vote for him.

Hamster: "Most Jews are liberal or progressive.AIPAC is supported by a very small contingent of power-mad or obsessive Jews and conservatives alike,not by the rank and file, if you will. Your question makes a wrong assumption and betrays ignorance if not bigotry"

So we are told. With all due respect, I don't see them. I don't hear them. Where are they speaking out against AIPAC? You can dispense with the antisemitic/bigot charge as deflection and address the question.
I won't be holding my breath.

"That means nominating Kucinich, impeaching the two biggest crininals to ever hold office in the executive branch, and ending the war in Iraq."

Lobo, I'm with you 100% on that. I guess we differ on what to do one year from now when Plan A hasn't worked out.

And, to be honest, I'm still struggling with the question. I've voted for 3rd-party candidates for president before -- twice, in fact. I'm all for shaking up the system.

But, as a strategy, I don't see that working. It hasn't worked in the past; why will it work in 2008? Somebody might get 6 or 8% of the popular vote, but zero-zip-zilch-nada electoral votes, and the major parties will go on with business as usual.

On the other hand, "working within the system", or "taking back the Democratic party from the inside" isn't working either. (Some have called the notion "childish" -- on another thread.)

So I'm still looking for a solution. Any new ideas out there?

-- ARG

(And Jaded, what about Giuliani strikes you as being "authentic" in any sense of the word? Perhaps he's an authentic blowhard, but he's certainly no man of conviction. He'd be a worse nightmare than Bush, I am sure.)

The problem is, we're ultimately going to be given a choice between the rpugnant Hillary and the madman Rudi. So, Hillary will get elected, and proceed to do 90% of what Rudi would do, but, like all good Democrats, follow proper procedure and decorum, and speak in soft tones while doing it.

I'ts GOT to be a conspiracy.

"Can the country survive four more years (possibly eight) of this same neocon crap?? I don't think so."

You think it's survival a 'good thing'?

I'm a liberal and I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.
I don't think any voter in this country should overlook or rationalize or forgive the litany of offenses you cite.

You left out her long-time PR guru and chief strategist, the odious Mark Penn, whose PR firm, Burson-Marsteller, is another column. Whose latest addition to the client list is Blackwater. What's frightening is that none of this is getting any attention, and so many people are being stampeded, by Mr. Penn and the corporate media, into voting for Hillary's vagina. Sure, it would be cool to have a woman president. And if you believe that, I have two words for you: Margaret. Thatcher.

It would be orders of magnitude cooler to have a progressive president.

Here's something I ran across this morning, that kind of sums up the Hillary barf-factor for me:

... a few weeks ago in the The New York Times, Adam Liptak wrote a piece called, "Attorneys at Politics: Would You Hire One to Represent You?" In it, he told a remarkable story that, I believe, illustrates the dangers of Hillary Clinton more than anything I've ever read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/weekinreview/28liptak.html

"The first jury trial Mrs. Clinton handled on her own, for instance, concerned the rear end of a rat in a can of pork and beans," Liptak wrote - and if here you're thinking, "Go get 'em, Hillary! Evil corporations are trying to poison us!" you are sadly misled. She represented the corporation, and "she argued that there had been no real harm, as the plaintiff did not actually eat the rat. 'Besides,' she wrote in her autobiography, describing her client's position, 'the rodent parts which had been sterilized might be considered edible in certain parts of the world.'"

To no one in particular and everyone in general:
Vote your conscience. To do otherwise is to endorse and condone what has become the status quo. Electability is not the criteria for voting; principle is the criteria. If Kucinich is the one whose policies and platform resonate with you, vote for him, even as a write-in. If Hillary or Rudy or Mitt or John or Obama or... are your principled choices, place your vote. Do not vote for the lesser of anything, because if you do, that is what you will get: The Lesser. Take torture and war and fiscal irresponsibility off the table and place compassion and kindness and humanitarian concerns in their place. Peace is the Way and violence is not an option. As you witness that 25% of the homeless are veterans, yet only 11% of the population, consider the future if we continue down this pathway of war and occupation. Observe all facets of global issues, not just isolated segments. We do not live in segments, we live in wholes. Poor healthcare ripples into degrading quality in the workforce, which places sub-standard products and services into commerce. High fuel prices result in increased costs for all commodities, since all products have to be shipped from one place to another, whether near or far. People who feel at risk for their jobs spend less even on necessities for fear of losing their jobs and the income that they have become used to. Less demand results in lower production, which results in cutting of production costs and personnel to facilitate that production. Do you see the connection? And, this is not just local, but global. Even China will reduce production of goods if there is declining demand. Follow the cookie crumbs: we are all interconnected and interdependent, and each of us is part of the whole. Even those with vast wealth who seem so separate from those with little financial wealth cannot escape the reality of the global community's interdependence. Food, clothing, and shelter are required for human survival. Follow the string of production from seed to consumption. Where do you fit in? Where is anyone exempt from the chain of life? From birth to death, we are One.

peace,
st john

stjohn, Thank you for your contribution. What it so eloquently points out is that there are some things more important than stategies and winning.Unless and until people recognize that voting their conscience frees them from the tyranny of limitation, then they will begin to see that it is an incredibly powerful force for change. We have to signal clearly to the Universe exactly what it is that we want our reality to be.Our intentions. The clearer the "dream", the more support that can be given to achieve the dream. Voting out fear to in the hope of averting a worse disaster, limits the possible outcomes. That is why I keep imagining everyone deciding to vote from their hearts and let the chips fall where they may. Dreams are good, my dear people. They give the Universe some raw material for creating. DREAM DREAM DREAM!!!!!!!

Dear starofthesea November 8th, 2007 1:43 pm,
Thanks for your response. I am heartened by posts such as yours and siouxrose, and others who post here, who really "get it" about who we truly are and what we are here for: to recognize our Divinity and extend Love to our Brothers and Sisters, no matter how "they" may receive and mirror our gift. There are so many beings, both embodied and in spirit, that have come to share this truth. I am so grateful that I have been given this gift of awareness and can share it with others. I do forget and lapse into fear and judgment from time to time; then I am given some sign and renew my trust in Spirit's all-embracing Love.

peace,
st john

Vern: The reason Hilary is somewhat aligned with the neocons is obvious-- she and they are both tools of multinational capital. That's who she's pandering to. Hilary is not aligning herself with the neocon agenda in order to pander to N.Y. Jews. I'm a Jew from New York. I repeat, most Jews are liberal or progressive. Let's leave ethnicity out of this, please.

It has gotten to the point that I have decided to vote for the worst candidate. Why? Because both parties seem to be poised to nominate both unacceptable choices. The best candidates don't have a chance.
If the worst candidate gets voted into office (and either Guiliani or Clinton are a dead heat for this title), maybe the possibility of four years of their ineptitude will be just what it takes to catipult our citizenry into a much needed revolution. A major house cleaning is in order. Many people are getting to the point where an all out "taking it to the streets and shouting 'I'm mad as hell and am not taking it anymore'" doesn't sound out of the question.