Being misinformed before you make a decision on anything, no matter how small, can bring major consequences if you act on faulty information or assumptions. If you’re in a cash crunch, and are considering a payday loans, this certainly is no exception. Many people fall victim to misunderstanding just what they are getting themselves into. Currently, some politicians are trying to pass legislation to restrict or outlaw these financial services. Some have even succeeded. Their assumption is that payday loan lenders are in the same category in their ethics and practices as mafia loan sharks. They couldn’t be more wrong. Do not be misled, and educate yourself, and your family and friends on your options in financially tough times.

One of the biggest targets for politicians, as far as economics are concerned, is becoming the payday loan industry. Governors across the country are trying to rid their states of the industry altogether, and so far, Georgia, North Carolina, and Oregon have succeeded. The result was that bankruptcies, foreclosures, and also the number of overdraft fees due to bouncing checks went through the roof, which doesn’t do anything for the citizens afflicted in these turbulent times, and only is really good for the banking industry. Despite these negative effects, other states are looking to follow the example and do the same. Even at the national level, presidential candidate Barack Obama, is weighing in his own agenda on the issue, and advancing his own intentions on getting rid of the industry in the United States completely. If these measures, both on state levels and nationally, are successful, the results are going to be increased unemployment, more debt, more foreclosures, and an even worse economy.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Payday Loans
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406

Some politicians, such as Barack Obama, are looking to outlaw the payday loan industry. A large part of this intention was stirred by the flawed idea that payday lenders fall under the same moral values as illegal loan sharks. Being misinformed can accumulate some severe consequences. Although this statement is true, they take no notice of the genuine fact that the main source of these consequences is based on a course of action on inaccurate information. Sadly, a number of politicians have successfully passed legislation in their states, city and towns which controls, or even takes away your ability to get a payday loan. Now is the time to take action and educate your friend and family to protect your rights to financial independence.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

"If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!" And the payday loan industry definitely isn’t broken. Customers actually commend payday lenders because, when used properly, they’re one of the most convenient ways to get yourself out of a financial dilemma. On the contrary, there are some high powered politicians that don’t see the payday loan industry in such a favorable light. Numerous politicians are trying to fix something that ain’t broke. Several bipartisan efforts have completely banned the payday loan industry in certain states. When you vote this November, make sure you consider your right to financial freedom.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

"Left? Right? When you go too far in either direction you meet at a place. The place is called Globalist Anti-Freedom Fascism (or Communism). Wasn't it Hillary who was fighting hard for socialized medicine while her husband was President?"

Oy freakin' vey! And I suppose that's why we shouldn't care too much about those Buddhist monks being slaughtered in Myanmar -- 'cause if we do, we'll magically transform into big, hulking fascists! Best to stay in the middle like a good li'l D.L.C. moderate, huh? Give me a break!

Cuba is Stalinist -- which is to say its FISCAL policy (free doctors around the world) clearly benefits the poor/oppressed but its SOCIAL policy (censorship, the death penalty) does NOT. Therefore, a Stalinist is actually in the middle.

Likewise, these damn constitutionalist Ayn Rand libertarians are also in the middle, except in reverse. Their SOCIAL policy (free speech, decriminalized drugs) is cool but their FISCAL policy (totally letting the rich/powerful off the hook) sure as Hell AIN'T!

So the best thing to do is go as far to the left on the HORIZONTAL political spectrum as you can (no matter how much flack Hillary will give you for it a decade down the line). What will you find when you get there? Amsterdam! Does Amsterdam have the leftist ideal of BOTH free speech AND free, universal health care? YES! Are there armed troops roaming the streets of Amsterdam -- bursting in folks' homes at midnight, overturning mimeograph machines and dragging them off to Gulags? NO! God, the ignorance ..!

And NO, Hillary was NOT fighting for socialized medicine in the early 1990s. Like a typical DLC moderate, HER plan went out of its way to be all things to all people -- namely the insurance companies!

Only someone spoiled who never had to sit in an emergency room for eight hours straight would "think" a global dictatorship would arise from allowing poor people to go to the fucking doctor!

Read about Mario Teran. Teran was the man who shot Che Guevara 40 years ago -- ready for an overdose of IRONY? Recently, Teran was going blind and guess who gave him his sight back? CUBAN doctors! That's communism! That's Christianity (they could've just as soon said, "you shot Che? Go blind then!")! Deeds, NOT words!

The Cold War was based on a false premise: Would you rather see or hear? Well obviously, NO one wants to be blind OR deaf! Duh!

"... the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both."
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 1967

See, when you mix chocolate and peanut butter, you get Reese Peanut Butter Cups! Rent the documentary Sex, Drugs and Democracy sometime -- there's a lot more to life than America's constitution ...

Besides, it's been my experience that those who fear the world coming together are the same folks who're overly concerned that globally, whites are in the minority. New World Order my ass -- fear of a brown planet is more like it ..!

Saab Lofton,

We read history very differently (I clearly remember what happened to McGovern, not to mention Mondale), though we both apparently have much respect for Mr. Zinn.

And another common point is that I have argued since I was a teen that "If peaceful protestors in this country, the most powerful and most well-armed country on earth, do not stand up, then peaceful protestors in the countries on the other side do not have a chance."

Good luck to you, and I hope you are right, but I really doubt it. Sometimes you take a chance and it works out, and sometimes it leads to catastrophe. And all the signs are there for catastrophe this time. Though I will admit that even if a Democrat does win, we will probably have a deep recession if not a depression in the next few years, and the Republicans will blame that on the Democrats and will likely be able to elect a fascist in 2012 (probably Jeb), and that will be the end of it anyway.

As much as there are dead on statements, a few just don't want to digest the truth. Which in turn
is only too understandable. I usually get quite carried away through all this uproar, but I promise
to keep it condensed.
I said it before and I say it again. The solution for this PLANET is the acknowledgment of interdependence as the sole principle of peaceful coexistence.
Divide and conquer does not only work in reaping in some new territories into Your Empire, it works as
well in breaking the resistance. Look at ourselves here. We are already separating ourselves from
each other over something that is so ridiculous, it should be handled as what it is. Distraction from
the real issues.
Bill Clinton was as much a disappointment as Hillary Clinton will be. And to get to the lesser of whatnot principle, that is so disturbing. Like somebody who does not have the guts to speak up
against anything wrong, or illegal in that regard.
No, the only solution to stop this drama/tragedy is a total reform of the ways Democracy is conducted.
The people who wrote or drafted out the Constitution are dead since some time now. Did things
change? You bet. Did we adjust the Constitution to those changes? No. The results are on hand.
Remember the MIC stating that the Constitution is just a piece of paper, or so? Try to imagine the same statement in front of the 'Founding Fathers'.
The solution comes in form of a process that is well established. Jury duty. My argument is, if You are
able to judge over a human life in court, why wouldn't You be able to receive a letter that states that
You are to join the parliament (of any given country) for the time of four years. In those four years there will be People in the parliament, not professional liars and con artists. People of all walks of life,
poor, rich, black, white, whatnot, above 21 up to 65, left, right, red or blue, no matter who You are and
what You are. The only thing that counts is that You will sit in there for four years to improve the lives
of Your family, Your friends, Your neighbors, Your city, Your State, Your country and the whole planet.
I have been challenged by people telling me that it would never work, because those people have no
experience in politics, to which I always counter that looking at our present situation, ordinary people
like You and me would have done WAY BETTER than that.
Politicians are the nails in the coffin that bears the name EARTH.
My best point of course is the fact that this planet has been fucked up by politicians not people. A good start is the Fujimoro trial in Peru. Even though the guy has less dirty laundry than our poster
child Georgie, he is in for crimes against humanity amongst other things like state sponsored terrorism, something that comes to mind, speaking of Georgie Boy...
The alternative is hell on earth. Is there anybody amongst Common Dreamers that actually believes
that things are turning to the better soon?
Definitely not. So let's get a moratorium on an governing system that does not reward criminals and liars, does not solely benefit the Military Industrial Complex, Insurances, Pharma Corporations and
the enablers of all this, our traitors in the rooms and hallways of both Senate and Congress, not to
speak of the White House.
All this needs to go. Peacefully.
How does that proverb go? Where there is a WILL, there is a WAY.

Left? Right? When you go too far in either direction you meet at a place. The place is called Globalist Anti-Freedom Fascism (or Communism). Wasn't it Hillary who was fighting hard for socialized medicine while her husband was President? I have a grand idea! Let's stop giving all the middle class federal income tax money to foreign and domestic bankers (aka Federal Reserve, NOT A PART OF THE US GOVERNMENT BUT A PRIVATE CORPORATION). Then maybe we will have money for doctors and medicine and not be in a state of perpetual war. They love it when we go to war, they get to print worthless money not backed by anything and then we can pay interest on paper. Isn't that lovely? Oh and sometimes they take our paper money via our Fed income tax and sometimes they just take our gold out of Fort Knox. Shouldn't this be illegal? I think it is. I wonder why the politicians in 1913 didn't get tried for treason?

I put my stock in the U'wa -- the ones you don't care about ...

Well, Saab, I really don't care what Ken Silverstein or Ralph Nader have to say or you either for that matter. The fact is, if I want to choose the lesser to two evils, it's my prerogative. I was stating my plan and my opinions. Is that OK with you?

Btw, what fiendish stock is in your mutual fund, pray tell?

"Is there anyone in their right mind who really thinks that Gore, notwithstanding his many faults, would have led us down this same river of shit?"

Faults -- is that how you dismiss them ..?

The Nation
posted May 3, 2000 (May 22, 2000 issue)
Gore's Oil Money
Ken Silverstein

One of the world's hottest battles between indigenous groups and multinational oil companies is heating up in Colombia, where Occidental Petroleum is seeking to drill on land claimed by the 5,000-member U'wa tribe. Early this year, the Colombian government deployed several hundred soldiers to guard workers building a road to the multibillion-dollar project. That led to a clash in February when security forces used tear gas to break up an anti-Occidental demonstration of several hundred Indians. Three children reportedly drowned when they fell into a river as they fled from government troops. The U'was won at least a temporary victory on March 31, when a Colombian court ordered the government to stop Occidental from drilling on tribal land. Meanwhile, an international campaign opposing Occidental's plan is also picking up steam. On April 28 about 100 demonstrators turned up at Occidental's annual meeting in Santa Monica and called on the company to halt the project. Activists have also picketed the offices of Fidelity Investments, which owns about 8 percent of Occidental's shares, and criticized Vice President Al Gore, whose family owns at least a quarter of a million dollars' worth of Occidental stock.

... Al Gore is NOT King Richard or any other long lost, wronged figure (Congressional Black Caucus members tried to object to the 2000 election outcome on the floor of the House; no Senator would sign the objections -- why didn't Gore stand with them?!), and in an alternate reality in which Gore did win, we'd be cursing the name of Occidental instead of Halliburton ...

In fact, it could easily be argued that Gore's one chance to slip past the gates of Paradise -- An Inconvenient Truth -- never would've come out if he did win ...

When I first met Nader, he told the California Nurses Association back in the mid-1990s that, "People have been controlled all throughout history by having their expectations LOWERED." If your electoral expectations are so rock bottom low that you don't mind the lesser of two evils, then that's all you'll get. Shame that the rest of the planet's gotta suffer, though -- like the U'wa tribe, for instance ...

My plan is to vote for Kucinich in the primary and then whoever the dem nominee turns out to be. Maybe if enough of us get off our butts and vote for Dennis, he'll be our man. Otherwise, I'll be voting for Clinton, Edwards, or Obama next November. Yes, I know, I know. I really can't stand any of them and almost puke at the idea of any of them taking THE HELM, but if I had it to do over again, I'd still vote for Gore and Kerry over Bush, and I'm still pissed off at Nader for wanking the 2000 election, which in my opinion is what he did. Is there anyone in their right mind who really thinks that Gore, notwithstanding his faults, would have led us down this same river of shit?

Glenn Thrush says: Clinton Accuses Obama of Being Too Far Left

I personally think that this statement should scare one away from Hillary! If she thinks that Obama is too far to the left then what does she really think about issues!

alexnosal, forget NAFTA, the SPP is supposed to be NAFTA on steroids!

Out of Kuncinich and Wellstone, I consider Kucinich more electable.

COMarc says: Hillary is attacking Obama because her campaign is imploding.

Isn't that good news! Let her attack! Maybe someone should show an ad where she goes on air and talks about imaginary people crossing the border from Canada into the United States (it is a proven fact that they were imaginary, made up, never existed).

If money wasn't a huge factor in American politics then Guiliani wouldn't even be in the race!

And if you're really "lifelong socialist," you'll appreciate what Professor Howard Zinn once said: "The ultimate solution is not with the people on top. The ultimate solution is for people in the streets to create an atmosphere for people on top to be accountable."

I'm calling that tired bluff — the one which claims all Hell will break loose if a Republican wins next year — because I know my history and I'm putting my faith in the left. So it doesn't matter if Satan comes out of a hole in the ground and crawls into the Oval Office in January of 2009, if everyone is doing their part on a grassroots level, the Human race and the planet Earth will not only survive but thrive.

In Ken Butigan's Pilgrimage Through a Burning World: Spiritual Practice and Nonviolent Protest at the Nevada Test Site, Butigan wrote, "The U.S. peace movement played a key role in ending the Cold War." And Burning World backs this up by citing a series of historians — including Lawrence S. Wittner, author of 1997's The Struggle Against the Bomb. Writes Butigan: "In his book, Wittner argues that the missing ingredient in any explanation of this reality is the world nuclear disarmament movement that has mobilized millions of people around the world. Wittner confesses that he hadn't expected to reach this conclusion. He assumed that the anti-nuclear movement had failed because nuclear weapons had not been definitively abolished. Yet as he pursued his research, he came to understand that this 'people power'
movement had played an important role in curbing the nuclear arms race and preventing nuclear war."

This means the activists all too many are all too quick to dismiss have in fact quite literally saved this planet from destruction. Support your troops? Support your protesters! They're the ones who really keep us safe and free (besides, if you really want to support the troops, make sure they have jobs and health care when they come home)!

How many times do we have to be betrayed by DLC moderates like Hilary, Obama, Gore, Kerry, etc. before we say, "the line must be drawn here -- this far, no further!"

And I cannot in good conscience just sit by while the D.L.C. presents JUST AS MUCH of "a grave threat" -- all the while implying that Hillary or Obama is supposedly the best we the people can hope for because supposedly Kucinich ain't "electable" or "realistic" ...

Paul Bramscher said it best on December 12th, 2007 8:05 pm
All I can say to the "the election might be canceled" people is this: Worse than martial law or a canceled election would be a totally co-opted "opposition." Indeed, it would be politically far easier, far less risky, to simply co-opt the opposition. Cancel the election outright and you might have patriots on the left AND right coming together. Turn the whole thing into a charade, and you'll continue to fool the majority. For a certain amount of time, anyway.

... well, as the song goes, we won't be fooled again. If having a black man or a white woman in the White House is the only concern, why not draft Clarence Thomas and Ann Coulter?

Kucinich or bust!

Kivals,

What you don't seem to understand is that by succumbing to the "lesser-evilism" of the two-party duopoly (read, two factions of one Corporate Party), you help ensure that someone like Giuliani becomes president in the future. Voting Democratic doesn't eliminate or even reduce the threat of a future Giuliani; it merely postpones it.

We hear the same mantra of lesser evilism every election. We MUST vote Clinton, because Dole is worse. We MUST vote Gore because Bush is worse; we MUST vote Kerry because Bush got even worse than we thought in 2000. What has happened? The left's endless capitulation has moved "mainstream" political discourse further and further right to the point where the likely Democratic nominee is more conservative (on most issues) than Richard Nixon 40 years ago. And, the Republican front-runner would have been a fringe, John Bircher type candidate 40 years ago.

But continual leftist capitulation in the face of this Hobson's Choice, will only move the spectrum FURTHER RIGHT. In 20 years, your young son may face an election where the DEMOCRAT is akin to Giuliani and the Republican is...God only knows (that is, if there are even elections in 20 years).

Giuliani is a frightening man, I grant you. I've voted for Nader three times, yet the prospect of Giuliani in the White House causes me to pause. A Giuliani presidency would be a frightening prospect to consider. But if full blown fascism comes to America, it won't be in one swift moment. It will be very, very gradual, easily missed by most people. Indeed I, and many of us on CD, believe this evolution has already started. A Giuliani administration would definitely speed it along, but electing a Democrat, Hillary, Obama or Edwards, won't stop it or even reduce it's likelihood. Rather, it will merely slow the process down.

Supporting an truly progressive INDEPENDENT presidential campaign (be it lead by Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney or even Kucinich) will not alone stop or slow the fascist tide either. But, if enough progressives stopped being afraid and started being intransigent, and devoted as much time and energy to such a campaign as they have toward protesting the war and impeaching Bush, and if this campaign was linked to similar campaigns for lower offices (i.e. Cindy Sheehan), and if it carried over past the 2008 election into the building of an actual "Second Party", all of this would move the political "mainstream" back to the left, slowly, but surely. THAT, my friend, is our best hope if stopping full fledged fascism in America.

A word on the Supreme Court: Yes, you are replaying the past by constantly invoking it. In every single election, progressives are admonished to vote Democrat because of the Supreme Court. Oh really? Let's consider those four justices you mentioned:

Thomas -- Confirmed by a Democratically controlled Senate
Scalia -- Confirmed by a GOP Senate but UNANIMOUSLY. Not only did Democrats not filibuster, they all supported him, almost without any serious discussion
Roberts -- Confirmed by a GOP Senate easily with Democrats promising that while they were giving Bush this one, they'd fight the next one.
Alito -- Confirmed by a GOP Senate without a Democratic filibuster when Democrats went back on their promise.

And yet, the Democrats are the "guardians" we are supposed to trust with the Supreme Court? The most a President Hillary would do is put a centrist minimalist (who is pro-choice) on the court; someone akin to Sandra O'Connor. Sorry, but I'm am not willing to capitulate to lesser-evilism and facilitate the slow tide toward fascism all for some milquetoast justice whose main quality is that s/he won't overturn Roe v. Wade.

Obama may be too inexperienced, but this stuff about being too far to the Left is really hilarious. Barack Obama is so scripted by his handlers in the "Bob Schrum school" of how to run for President without upsetting the status quo that it isn't funny. Hillary and Obama are birds of a feather. So, Dennis Kucinich gets booted off the latest Iowa dumb-ass question debate. Who's going to ask the "Socialized Medicine" question this time? Won't be able to ask the UFO question this time because Dennis won't be there!

if you want a country run by Americans for Americans then Kucinich is the nearest you're going to get to it.

Any candidate who criticises somebody for being in favour of universal health care is just an Insurance, Pharmaceutical hack.

Just visit Sweden if you want to see how a country should be managed where people live long and happy lives. No military agression from them, no desperate measures to keep a low paid job in order to maintain a " healthcare " system which is just for corporate profit. High taxes yes but high returns in the form of leave of absence from work during and after pregnancy. No, or very few churches , religion cast aside as voodoo wishful thinking.

Americans have been indoctranated into believing right wing systems benefit everybody but clearly they benefit only a few the majority live in comparitive squaller. Yes Americans are well off compared to Africans and south americans but not against Europeans and Japanese. The left wing government of China is dragging that country up by its bootstraps into the 21 first century held back over the centuries with the likes of the Kumintang which were forced over to Taiwan and billions of Dollars poured in to prop up that fascist enterprise. Even Stalin tried to bring Russia into more modern times after centuries of Elite dictatorships.

Nader2000 "Your apparently define anyone who chooses her battles and thinks twice about shooting herself in the foot as a coward."

No I defined people who don't practice what they preach as a hypocrite. If Hillary is lying about her beliefs to become president then she is not only a hypocrite but also she is a coward. If Hillary is lying about her real position to get the job not only is she lying to us she is lying to herself.

She has shown through her record and her statements that she cares more about the corporate elite than she does about the common good.

Saab Lofton,

I believe lillulu was, and I know I was, treating adherence to the US constitution as a floor, not as a ceiling. Following the US constitution should be an absolute minimum for a political leader, not a noble deed to aspire to. However, it appears that most of the top tier presidential candidates would be unlikely to even meet that low standard.

And protecting the middle class in the US should be similarly seen as a floor, not a particularly noble goal. I believe most of us here at CD do feel solidarity with all people of the world, and desire an improvement in the opportunities and quality of life for all the oppressed, impoverished, and suffering on this earth, while we recognize the US government and the international corporatocracy is responsible for much of that suffering, but none of the presidential candidates, not even Kucinich, seriously address those issues.

And if Giuliani becomes president, then third parties and proportional representation, even an open Internet or plausibly fair elections in the future, become pure pipe dreams. The world is changing rapidly and not in a good way. Spending your time planting and tending crops to be harvested later is a poor strategy when a gang with guns is at the gate and coming to take over your land.

rickster469 -

Your apparently define anyone who chooses her battles and thinks twice about shooting herself in the foot as a coward. So, I guess your choices are limited to cowards or fools. Well, then again, there are always the genuinely evil.

Hillary is desperate. Anyone who has done any research on capital punishment knows that since DNA is valid, a lot of innocent people have gone to prison and been executed. Any decent human being would be against capital punishment for this reason alone, not considering the inhumanity of it. She's groping for anything that will give her an inch over Obama. But she is a snake of the worst kind who will not return our country back to honor, integrity, and adhering to the laws of our constitution. Her record just like Senator Feinstein shows where her true intentions lie. Those records tell us to walk away from these two traitors of democracy.

"There are two separate and distinct political views in our nation today ... the Corporatists and the Constitutionalists. This would be a better way to differentiate the politicians that run for office, and make the process easier for the people of the United States."

Easier for who? Retards who don't read and definitely don't want the rich taxed/military cut so the poor can finally have free, universal health care or a Greenpeace version of FDR's New Deal (kill two birds with one stone -- pay the poor a LIVING wage to help end global warming, grow hemp, build electric cars, install solar panels, etc. etc.) because they wannabe rich/powerful themselves one day?

Quit trying to impress the ignorant, EDUCATE them -- with HONESTY! Damn it, the U.S. Constitution was written by rich white men who didn't let women or the poor vote, held slaves and stole the Natives' land -- what's with all this deification of these freemasons?

(I hate corporations too, but what do you call Ben & Jerry's ..?)

There's an equivalent of the First Amendment in the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights (written by H.G. Wells) and there's one in Amsterdam's (where BOTH free speech AND free health care exists, see the documentary Sex, Drugs and Democracy) constitution too. Obviously, I'm NOT saying scrap the U.S. Constitution, but doN'T limit your already limited political imagination to THIS country. Damn middle class solipsism ... Once again:

While it's historically true that, "the idea of 'left' and 'right' come from the seating arrangement of the French Parliament during their 1780s and 90s revolution," what it ALWAYS HAS AND WILL come down to is the natural schism between the poor and/or oppressed and the rich and/or powerful.

Notice I allowed for the "and/or" — that means the Ku Klux Klan is usually made up of POOR white trash, but their platform (their positions on the issues) benefits the rich/powerful.

Likewise, Marlon Brando was a RICH white guy, but whenever the Black Panthers were in jail, Brando paid their bail — and that obviously benefited the poor/oppressed.

Whether you're a radical or merely a liberal depends on the extent to which you're willing/able to benefit the poor/oppressed. The Left-Wing.

Whether you're a fascist or merely a conservative depends on the extent to which you're willing/able to benefit the rich/powerful. The Right-Wing.

Good versus evil? Ask the tortured in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. Ask the people the C.I.A. "renditioned" or turned over to a graduate of the School of the Americas …

No, it's not an exact science, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that invading Iran when you can't afford to go to the doctor ain't gonna help the homeless …

The middle class? It ain't about you! You're already at the top of the food chain; your spoiled lifestyle is the envy of the globe! Think you have something to deal with? Call up someone from the so-called Third World; find someone from a country Amerikkka put a puppet in charge of! What was that line from The Simpsons? "You know, you sing the blues pretty good for someone with NO real problems."

Yes, the D.L.C. and the G.O.P. are twins (hence Hillary's snipe at Obama -- they're both competing for that corporate money needed to pay for EXPENSIVE airtime because Ronald 6 Wilson 6 Reagan 6 struck down the Fairness Doctrine 20 years ago), but there is a distinction between the D.L.C. and the democrats in the grass roots. Having said that, our best bet is to build up third (some rightfully say SECOND) parties like the Greens and the commies WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY supporting Kucinich and independents like Nader -- so long as taxing the rich/cutting the bloated military is in their platforms (this of course excludes the collossally overrated libertarians). Also too, we the people need to seriously look at Proportional Representation.

Earthian "So I agree with Paul B. that in the long run, we may be better off with making corporate Democrats unelectable than having another corporate Democrat in the White House."

That's my attitude right now too. I really believe if Hillary or Obama takes the nomination the republicans will take the white house. It may even happen if Edwards get the nomination.

Paul Bramscher (December 12th, 2007 10:21 pm) said:

"Progressives may be better off with 4 more years of Republicans in Republican Clothing, rather than in Democrat clothing. We don't need another band-aid, a temporary palliative, until another neocon tramples in and takes us still lower. Give us the real McCoy or give us nothing, I say."

The good part about this argument is the possibility that, by voting for Green Party candidates, or not voting, progressives can make corporate Democrats unelectable and force the Democrats to pick progressive candidates in the future—or lose.

This is important because of the difficulty of amending the Constitution along progressive electoral lines. It would be great and normal to get a multiparty democracy, eliminate the Electoral College, eliminate private money from elections, enable impeachment by initiative and referendum, and enable amendment by initiative and referendum, and other key progressive changes like universal health care, universal college education and worker rights to be on boards of directors via constitutional amendment. But the "iron cage" of Article V (as Sanford Levinson calls it in Our Undemocratic Constitution) requiring two-thirds of the states legislatures for a constitutional convention and three-quarters of the state legislatures for approving amendments makes such changes nearly impossible. That means this: a progressive president and Congress are the surest ways to real progressive changes. Obama, Clinton and Edwards are not candidates who will push for true progressive reforms. Clinton is, well, Clinton. A Goldwater Girl. Obama's mentor is Lieberman. Edwards voted for Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2002. These three are corporate, militarist Democrats.

So I agree with Paul B. that in the long run, we may be better off with making corporate Democrats unelectable than having another corporate Democrat in the White House. That way, in 2012, maybe the Democratic Party will face the prospect of putting forth a progressive candidate, or losing again, if progressives turn against the corporate Democrat nominee. With Kucinich being excluded from the Iowa debate, the game is on. I think progressives need to seriously consider Paul's interesting idea.

trdrury:
I don't think we've reached our threshold of pain yet. It could take an apocalypse to convince my repug friends and that still may not do it. I think they'll die before they see the proverbial light. They'll die with their religion of money and take us all with them. Turn on, tune in, drop out could still be the answer.

Barely human,

Don't do that! Go to your polling place and record your vote on that electronic machine with a 5 lb. hammer instead.

"itsjustkarma," good post :)
*****************************
Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves -- which is what Hillary just did, claiming Obomba is "too far left," which he definitely is not. A statement like that proves she's too far to the right. Hillary went along with Bush and voted for attacking Iraq, and she knew Iraq was no threat -- she's not stupid. Joe Lieberman is Obomba's mentor, as someone mentioned. Republicans in Democrats' clothing. Republicans are wolves and Democrats are wolves in sheeps' clothing. There's no difference between the two, especially when the Democrats allow Bush a blank check to do whatever he wants.

lillulu,

Interesting comments. I do like to believe that at least a few of the electable candidates want to preserve the constitution and representative democracy in the US. It appears that Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul do, though Paul is a nut and all three face insurmountable obstacles. I like to believe that Edwards does, and his rhetoric suggests he does, but I am not completely convinced.

As for the others, they are clearly corporatists who have joined the corporate forces that have abandoned the US middle class and are working on developing an international structure, ignoring the US constitution, that is run by and for large corporations, with governments, particularly the US government, serving merely as enforcers and as the arsenal of the corporatocracy. However, that does not mean the corporatist candidates are equal or indistinguishable or that all of them have completely abandoned the constitution.

No disease is good, but some are more damaging and frightening than others, and similarly no corporatist politician is good, but some are clearly worse. Some corporatists appear more eager to discard the constitution and rapidly transition to fascism than others, and this is important because a delay can provide time for domestic and international movements to develop to thwart the corporatist takeover of the entire planet.

Giuliani appears to be the worst of all, a man with absolutely no respect for the constitution who would be certain to appoint a fifth fascist to the supreme court and assume dictatorial powers. Clinton is apparently the worst of the Democrats, who, as dangerous as they are, are not as a group quite as frightening as the Republicans and not likely to as easily dismiss the constitution (excluding the eccentric Ron Paul from the discussion).

After assuming dictatorial powers, Giuliani would definitely end Net Neutrality and quite likely would shut down or greatly censor political discussion on the Internet, making sites like CD unlikely and ensuring it would be much more difficult to organize or even to discuss political issues in a serious manner. He would also certainly greatly increase surveillance of all electronic communications, and his security apparatus would likely arrest anyone deemed a threat to the corporatist order. Social security and Medicare would be gutted and privatized and sold to his cronies, as would more of the social safety net and other functions of government. And who knows how many more wars he would start, though he should not have much trouble filling the ranks with unemployed and angry young men, who will be the natural result of years of poor performance of boys in school combined with increased outsourcing and the US economic decline.

Politics is and always has been ugly, and in the US it is getting uglier all the time. If you want something pure, read some books on mathematics.

Abbybwood; Thank you for posting the telephone numbers. I called the Des Moines newspaper and voiced my concern and the woman said Dennis didn't meet the criteria to be on the debate. She said to check out the newspaper's website for the 'criteria'.

When Nader told those who would listen, back in 99-2000 about the deal between the Democrats and Republicans not allowing "third or more parties" into the debate, many thought he was a screwball. My friends, Dennis Kucinich is a third party candidate. He is the 'peoples candidate' in spite of staying in the morally corrupt Democratic Party. Why he didn't become a Green Party member I don't know. Michael Parenti, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, and many more thinkers know the score and have been writing and lecturing about it for decades.

I'm very sad, this morning. Sad for this once great country with all it's flaws, and which was once a beacon of light in the darkness. But no more. Maybe Oswald Spengler was right.

Can anyone point me towards the FIRST draft of Hillary Clinton's (1996?) health care plan? Before it was gutted by corporate interest, and before she sacraficed its spirit for political gain...

I want to know the truth. I want to know if she sold out, or if she was always a corporatist.

I know there are a lot of smart, resourceful people on this site, and I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks!

If the race is between Hillary and Giuliani I'll vote with a gun in my mouth.

Why would anyone with any sense consider voting for that woman? Obama too far left? What was she smoking?
If Obama actually proposed single-payer I might consider voting for him. Nice op-ed in the NYTimes this morning about French health care. Not only is their infant mortality half what ours is, not only do they live longer, their per capita costs are half what ours are, but M. Moore has covered that ground. Instead of tarring Obama for purportedly embracing progressive positions, the woman would do better to declare class war. But she can't do that, she's already in the corporate pocket.

Hillary is a great candidate....as a Republican!

It seems to me that we all need to find common grounds that all people on earth share and work from that point to make our world safe, secure and sustainable. To constantly call corporations "the devil" while at the same time buying products they sell and not recognizing that they are essentially groups of people providing services we desire is to be in denial and part of the overall problem. Yes - I'm opposed to this war and any war (I refused to go to Vietnam and was an outspoken critic of Iraq). Yes - I'm opposed to global corporate interests that keep people of the world in poverty. Yes - I am absolutely concerned about environment degredation of our planet. However, demonizing and blaming others is counter-productive. Somehow we must get away from all the things that divide us and concentrate on the things we have in common (Common Dreams) in order to bring about any meaningful change. I am a great supporter of the Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) and Amory Lovins who have found a way to bridge the imaginary separation of business profit and the environment. I support Barack Obama's call to bridge the differences that divide us in our country and the world which keep us from working together for a more just and peaceful world. This may seem trivial and impossible to cynics, but without breaking away from the "enemy/fear" paradigm (left, right, whatever) nothing will ever change. enough to truly save us from ourselves. We can be better than this. We MUST be better than this. The survival of humankind depends on it!

Mittens Rommell called Huckelberry Fascist a "liberal" too. Gonna be a bunch of stories about that here as well ?

Who cares ?

Rommmel, Huckelberry, Obomba, Hitlery, all to the far right of Richard Nixon

Stop wasting our time with their diseased blatherings

Why is this article on this site ?

Why isn't the space used to cover liberal politics ?
Is this not a liberal site speaking truth to corporate power ?

Is this site playing lesser-evilism ?

A strange charge from Hillary "Opportunistic" Clinton, whose positions on Cuba, Israel/Palestine, flag burning, gays in the military and many other issues closely follows George W. Bush's unrealistic, retrograde positions. I find Obama's positions often too centrist for my tastes, but I'll take him over Hillary any day.

Jack37 December 12th, 2007 10:06 pm

"Hillary is just doing what Bill did and is telling her to do—SELL OUT THE LEFT in order to get elected playing to the Right and "Middle," while appearing (to the comatose majority) to be progressive….KUCINICH OR THE HELL WITH IT…."

That about sums it up, Jack. Here's an interesting article about what we should expect from Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7599

Nader2000 "You have to look beneath the surface and follow your instincts in guessing what a candidate will actually be like in office, because none of them can afford to say anything at all radical while on the campaign trail."

That's the definition of a coward. Is that the type of person you want leading this country? If a person doesn't have the backbone to preach and practice their true beliefs then that person is a hypocrite and shouldn't be a leader. Evil is evil and an evil person never admits a mistake.

Hello, anybody at home up there? Don't fall prey for this kind of distraction. They are all the same. If Mr. Borat Obama is too far
left then Mrs. HRC has licked a few toads too many.
The fact is that there is nobody LEFT ENOUGH to end all this shameful rightwing scam. But what can You expect from those
politicians? Old Chinese proverb: 'One can put as much make up on one's arse as one likes, it will never going to be a face.'
Politicians can try as long as they want to convince anybody about their good intentions. Only those too far right wing people
like Mrs. Bushton, or Mrs. Clintbush if You prefer, have a problem with left.
But for starters, everybody else on the planet knows already that the heart is on the left side for a reason. If God would have wanted Nazis on a regular basis he would have placed the human heart on the far right side...
America needs Socialism now. Socialism is the natural way of living. Only those repiglican scam artists called 'Representatives'
have a problem with that. Because the concept of peace and prosperity does not fit in their brainwashed single grey cell.
For some people prosperity equals war, others are just indifferent if it comes to their own well being. They are so scared of
Socialism that they refuse to ponder about the real 'Socialism' as opposed to the one Americans have been scared with
since day one of socialism.
To be politically 'left', means primary to care about the 'human' part in mankind. Yes, free universal healthcare and not a
continuation of the same scam, pharma corporations pull off since decades with the help of politicians of both aisles.
Just one thing.
Can somebody explain to me why we are not already in a revolution with lots of nooses? The Buddhist in me always
remembers a story by an old Monk about the nature of Karma and what could be done to prevent worse for future
incarnations.
Seven Merchants embark on a ship from China to the Orient. There is only one more passenger, a Buddhist Monk on the
boat. He is able to overhear a conversation between one Merchant and a sailor. This one Merchant intends to kill the other six
in order to take over all their possessions.
The Buddhist monk kills this one Merchant, out of his sense for compassion. Not for the six Merchants but for the one greedy
Merchant, that would worsen his own Karma beyond belief, killing six people for mere greed. The Karma of the Buddhist
Monk who was to kill the one Merchant would be free of negative consequences, as he sacrificed his own Karmic well being to save somebody else from even bigger trouble.
Which should be some sort of a guideline for anybody who attempts to take things in one's own hands and clean house and senate from people who bring unimaginable suffering and hardship for millions of people in the Middle East.
What ordinary brain can make sense out of all this mess?
That's Right (wing), there is no sense in Rightwing policies. Shame on Hillary Bushton, Nanci Bushosi and all those other
sad excuses for 'representatives'.
Anybody who thinks that things will turn to the better in 2008 are on the wrong drugs.
The only chance we have is like that Bob Marley song "...Chase those crazy bald heads out of town!"
Stop wasting Billions of Dollars in a staged election campaign, in times were we need every penny, because thanks to the
second greatest leader of all times (Hitler called himself 'Greatest Leader Of All Times', which was the same BS as is proclaiming to be channeled by God) Boy Georgie has screwed up America the Great so bad we need to call it what it is:
The Gang Rape Of The Citizenry Of The United States by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Shame on all those opportunists like Hillary W. Clinton, or Georgia Pelosi. For people like You, there are some very telling
Buddhist equals as of where You will end up after the last oxygen has left Your treacherous bodies.
You will find out.

Obama considers Joseph Lieberman to be a mentor. So is Hillary now saying that she is to the right of Lieberman?

Well Hillary is too far right for me. Obama is also to the right of where I am but more preferable than Hillary aka Bush lite.

Barack the vote!

Everyone do this now:

Email the Des Moines Register and give them hell for silencing Kucinich in the upcoming debate.

"Republicans and Democrats are Obsolete.

The American political landscape has changed and I believe the change is permanent. The two main political parties should be disbanded, they are irrelevant. Most Americans that don't make their living in politics see no great difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The issues that separate them no longer apply.

The Republican Party that once believed in smaller government and a smaller role in social programs while favoring business and States Rights (A great departure from the party of Abraham Lincoln) now believes in government interference in everything except the corporate bottom line.

The Democrats, once the party of the Middle Class and large scale involvement in social programs while defending the American taxpayer from corporate class-warfare is a thing of the past, both political parties and the people that comprise them can't be recognizes from each other without a pundit telling us which side they are on.

There are two separate and distinct political views in our nation today. They are not the Republican view or the Democratic ideas of government. The two main schools of political thought in America today are the politicians that support involvement of big money and corporations to lead this nation, and the people that want a return to constitutional law and exclusion of multi-national stateless corporations in running the affairs of this country.

We may just as well call these two differing sets of people political caucuses. In fact, the divide is so great that this country would be better off scraping the two political parties that dominate this nation and forming two parties that accurately reflect the political realities of today's political climate. We could call these two differing parties the Corporatists and the Constitutionalists. This would be a better way to differentiate the politicians that run for office, and make the process easier for the people of the United States.

To illustrate my point, let us take the current field of candidates and separate them not by the confusing labels of Democrats and Republicans which mean absolutely nothing in today's political reality, but separate them into the two political divisions I mentioned above. It is apparent that the party lines would not only be drastically different, but it would also be much easier to differentiate these politicians by ideology.

Corporatists; Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Obama, Romney, Guiliani, Tancredo, Huckabee, Thompson, McCain. Hunter, Keyes

Constitutionalists: Kucinich, Edwards, Richardson, Paul, Gravel

Makes quite a difference doesn't it? I would rather see a debate along these lines than a debate among so called "Democrats and Republicans". These two parties have outlived their usefulness. To use an old expression, for most of the candidates that claim membership in either party, there is not a "Dime's worth of difference" between them. Either you accept that corporations are covered by First Amendment rights which of course they are not (see my article "Revolution by any Other Name…" which explains why this is not the case) or you accept the myth that corporations have "personhood". Either way, at least you will understand what you are voting for.

Blindly trusting the corporate class to lead this nation is the worst development to come out of the last fifty years (or longer). When you trust businessmen to lead the most powerful nation on Earth, you are setting the stage for an Orwellian society where individual rights are pushed aside for profit and greed. This is just commonsense. To understand how our government is being transformed, ask someone that works for a large corporation how they are treated when they express their individuality.

That's the way I see it." --- Timothy Gatto

"what's it gonna take for the rest of the country to get there. They all must have a higher tolerance for pain."

Good question. Good point. The answer: Two things, another Great Depression and another draft COMBINED would do the trick.

The reason why "they" seem to have a higher threshold is because it's hard to feel pain when you live like the Brady Bunch: T-Vo, playstation 3, reality TV, FOX News, sports, cable, a SUV in the garage, a good paying job, etc. etc. etc. If you're SPOILED, the need for rescue is as foreign as ancient Sanskrit ...

How sad it'd be if the rest of the world had to wait until suburban America fell from grace before EVERYONE ELSE could finally get some relief ...

There were a couple of twentysomethings who were contemplating joining the military. Since they were online, I had them log onto www.lebanonunderattack.com -- a site with photos of war atrocities -- and I could see their heads jerk back in utter disgust. I never saw them again, but wherever they are today, I bet yo' ass they ain't joined the miliary!

There was a Saturday Night Live sketch with Eddie Murphy called Cottonland, where guilt-stricken white liberals would dress like slaves and pick cotton on purpose while blacks dressed as overseers whipped them (think Westworld with Yul Brenner). Is it going to take that? You would think a few photos online and a documentary like The Panama Deception would be enough ...

"what's it gonna take for the rest of the country to get there. They all must have a higher tolerance for pain."

Good question. Good point. The answer: Two things, another Great Depression and another draft COMBINED would do the trick.

The reason why "they" seem to have a higher threshold is because it's hard to feel pain when you live like the Brady Bunch: T-Vo, playstation 3, reality TV, FOX News, sports, cable, a SUV in the garage, a good paying job, etc. etc. etc. If you're SPOILED, the need for rescue is as foreign as ancient Sanskrit ...

How sad it'd be if the rest of the world had to wait until suburban America fell from grace before EVERYONE ELSE could finally get some relief ...

There were a couple of twentysomethings who were contemplating joining the military. Since they were online, I had them log onto www.lebanonunderattack.com -- a site with photos of war atrocities -- and I could see their heads jerk back in utter disgust. I never saw them again, but wherever they are today, I bet yo' ass they ain't joined the miliary!

There was a Saturday Night Live sketch with Eddie Murphy called Cottonland, where guilt-stricken white liberals would dress like slaves and pick cotton on purpose while blacks dressed as overseers whipped them (think Westworld with Yul Brenner). Is it going to take that? You would think a few photos online and a documentary like The Panama Deception would be enough ...

rtdrury I've reached my threshold of pain....what's it gonna take for the rest of the country to get there. They all must have a higher tolerance for pain.

Paul Bramscher: Progressives may be better off with 4 more years of Republicans in Republican Clothing

The American people and the world will be better off with another four years of Repuk control of Washington because the sooner Americans reach their threshold of pain, the sooner we will finally purge this culture of corruption from our society. Everyone understands this way down deep.

'Progressive' invokes getting somewhere.'Left' invokes 'out of left field' and must deal with those who are 'right'. It's a third way. Get off the x-axis of right-left. Leftists will never pick up the votes of bitter conservatives but progressives might.

"Getting somewhere?!" Who're you trying to impress? Some imbred who was actually sick enough to CHEER when Schwarzenegger executed Tookie?

This x-y axis whatnot is rhetorical nonsense. While it's historically true that, "the idea of 'left' and 'right' come from the seating arrangement of the French Parliament during their 1780s and 90s revolution," what it ALWAYS HAS AND WILL come down to is the natural schism between the poor and/or oppressed and the rich and/or powerful.

Notice I allowed for the "and/or" -- that means the Ku Klux Klan is usually made up of POOR white trash, but their platform (their positions on the issues) benefits the rich/powerful.

Likewise, Marlon Brando was a RICH white guy, but whenever the Black Panthers were in jail, Brando paid their bail -- and that obviously benefited the poor/oppressed.

Whether you're a radical or merely a liberal depends on the extent to which you're willing/able to benefit the poor/oppressed. The Left-Wing.

Whether you're a fascist or merely a conservative depends on the extent to which you're willing/able to benefit the rich/powerful. The Right-Wing.

Good versus evil? Ask the tortured in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. Ask the people the C.I.A. "renditioned" or turned over to a graduate of the School of the Americas ...

No, it's not an exact science, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that invading Iran when you can't afford to go to the doctor ain't gonna help the homeless ...

So when Hillary says Obama is too far to the left, she's BEGGING Nader to throw his hat into the ring yet again! SOMEONE has to be a voice for the voiceless, 'cause it sure as Hell ain't gonna be her ass!

johncpt

Sorry, you're dead in the water. And Hillary is too. Saying someone is "too far to the left" is the oldest winger strategy in the book. This time, nobody's buying except imbeciles like you.

"I will vote my conscience, for Kucinich. But I will be ready to support the nominee, be it Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, because otherwise we are going to get another four years of Republican rule."

... and therein lies the trap. A neverending cycle. Anybody see Groundhog Day with Bill Murray -- the day that kept repeating? Don't you get it? That's what the D.L.C. is counting on! Besides, Clinton, Obama and Edwards are Republicans too!

Do what you want, as for me, this was the last straw: How did the August 7, 2007 editorial of The New York Times put it? "It was appalling to watch over the last few days as Congress — now led by Democrats — caved in to yet another unnecessary and dangerous expansion of President Bush's powers, this time to spy on Americans in violation of basic constitutional rights."

Either Dennis Kucinich is nominated or I will not vote in the 2008 presidential election. I'm calling that tired bluff — the one which claims all Hell will break loose if a Republican wins next year — because I know my history and I'm putting my faith in the left. Professor Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States, said it best, "The ultimate solution is not with the people on top. The ultimate solution is for people in the streets to create an atmosphere for people on top to be accountable."

So it doesn't matter if Satan comes out of a hole in the ground and crawls into the Oval Office in January of 2009, if everyone is doing their part on a grassroots level, the Human race and the planet Earth will not only survive but thrive.

In Ken Butigan's Pilgrimage Through a Burning World: Spiritual Practice and Nonviolent Protest at the Nevada Test Site, Butigan wrote, "The U.S. peace movement played a key role in ending the Cold War." And Burning World backs this up by citing a series of historians — including Lawrence S. Wittner, author of 1997's The Struggle Against the Bomb. Writes Butigan: "In his book, Wittner argues that the missing ingredient in any explanation of this reality is the world nuclear disarmament movement that has mobilized millions of people around the world. Wittner confesses that he hadn't expected to reach this conclusion. He assumed that the anti-nuclear movement had failed because nuclear weapons had not been definitively abolished. Yet as he pursued his research, he came to understand that this 'people power' movement had played an important role in curbing the nuclear arms race and preventing nuclear war."

This means the activists all too many are all too quick to dismiss have in fact quite literally saved this planet from destruction. Support your troops? Support your protesters! They're the ones who really keep us safe and free (besides, if you really want to support the troops, make sure they have jobs and health care when they come home)!

Grappa December 12th, 2007 7:21 pm
If that woman thinks she can win the presidency by attacking the left,she nuts. What will happen if we just decide to stay home on election day! Many on the left are convinced that this system will fall under its own weight. It matters not if a right wing Repub. is in the white house or a right wing Dem..
I could never vote for a Repub. but if Cinton doesn"t change her tune, I will leave the lever for pres. unmoved, if she is on the ballot

PERFECT! FLAWLESS! EXCELLENT!

Paul Bramscher December 12th, 2007 8:05 pm
All I can say to the "the election might be canceled" people is this:

Worse than martial law or a canceled election would be a totally co-opted "opposition." Indeed, it would be politically far easier, far less risky, to simply co-opt the opposition. Cancel the election outright and you might have patriots on the left AND right coming together. Turn the whole thing into a charade, and you'll continue to fool the majority.

For a certain amount of time, anyway.

AGAIN, PERFECT! FLAWLESS! EXCELLENT!

McDee,

"Every day Hillary reminds me more and more of Richard Nixon.She can't accuse Obama of being "Soft on Communism." There's no traction in that any more but soon we'll hear that he's "Soft on Terrorism."

Maybe we should change her nickname from FemBush to FemDick?

I agree, she is absolutely Nixonian in her mania for secrecy -- which sunk any chance we had of getting true national health care in the '90s as she concealed the participants in her 'task force' eight years before the Deputy Fuhrer used it -- and in her opportunism.

"And if Giuliani becomes president, then third parties and proportional representation, even an open Internet or plausibly fair elections in the future, become pure pipe dreams."

Again, the same ol' electoral blackmail: "Vote for WHOEVER the D.L.C. funds/puts on a pedestal OR ELSE." I remember when BILL Clinton was up against the FIRST Bush WAYYY back in 1992. We were told on an HOURLY basis that if the First Bush was reelected, there'd be sanctions against Iraq that would kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children ... well, guess what? Bill Clinton won and there were SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAQ THAT KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS!

I'll take that chance: Maybe if Giuliani wins next year, then the D.L.C. will become a pipe dream -- and the Democratic Party will start nominating REAL leftists instead of foisting blacks like Obama and women like Hilary as if that's accomplishing something ...

Kucinich has been excluded from the Iowa debate tomorrow because he doesn't have an "office" in the state (his rep. works out of his house??).

It's absolutely absurd that Kucinich be excluded when you consider that the JACKASS Alan Keyes was in today's Republican debate. Watch the tape. The guy's CERTIFIABLE!!

Anyhow, here is the contact information to try to get him included in the debate:

"If anyone is interested in calling the Iowa Register to demand that they reconsider and include Congressman Kucinich in the debate tomorrow (I have made several calls myself and have also pointed out to them their blatant inconsistency in the candidates requirements), here are the people involved in making this dispicable decision and their phone numbers:

The Des Moines Register : 1-800-247-5346

Carol Washburn (who is the one person that made the decision to remove Dennis from the Debate): (515) 284-8041 or (515) 284-8586
Laura Hollingsworth President and Publisher: (515) 284-8041
Rick BellVice President, Circulation: (515) 284-8319
Kevin D. Hall Vice President, Advertising: (515) 284-8384
Julie Harvey Vice President, Finance: (515) 284-8226
Kevin R. Johnson Vice President, Production: (515) 471-3505
Susan Patterson Plank Vice President, Marketing and Digital Development: (515) 284-8261
Joyce M. Ray Vice President, Human Resources: (515) 284-8586
Carolyn Washburn Vice President, Editor: (515) 284-8502
R. Dee Wilson Vice President, Information Services: (515) 284-8385

Please help out and CALL, CALL, CALL!!

K U C I N I C H ' 0 8"

Nader2000,

I think you misread COMarc's post. I agree that poll after poll puts America to the "left" (I prefer "down") of Hillary. And indeed we'd have a Kucinich, Nader, etc. in office if it weren't for the huge input of tens of millions of dollars, MSM blitzes, etc. to cause people to vote contrary to their own class interests. It is a peculiar combination of naivety, a trusting nature, apathy, perhaps lack of intelligence/wisdom, the power of propaganda, etc. that causes the majority to stab themselves in their own backs.

Progressives may be better off with 4 more years of Republicans in Republican Clothing, rather than in Democrat clothing. We don't need another band-aid, a temporary palliative, until another neocon tramples in and takes us still lower. Give us the real McCoy or give us nothing, I say.

peaceman,

I'm pretty optimistic about most things. Just not the economy or politics. I believe our economy is on the edge of a precipice. I do not believe that martial law is coming, but I do believe that all hell will eventually break lose unless we get leadership which fairly and justly represents We The People.

COMarc writes:

> "Most of the 'left' positions are supported by large majorities of the American people when polled. That goes from single payer health care to ending the war in Iraq."

This claim is a distortion. You seem to be a fairly sophisticated analyst of the political race, so how can you possibly advance such a simplistic thesis, except as the manipulative rhetoric it is?

Majorities for these positions can be recorded when polls frame and spin the issues in their favor. This has little to do with how the issues will play out in a national debate that is controlled by the corporate media. We do not have "large majorities" which are politically conscious and have committed to progressive positions which they can independently articulate and defend against an onslaught of propaganda from the Right. If we did, Ralph Nader would be president, or Kucinich would be the front-runner today.

Hillary Clinton has been seeking power since her student activist days. I do believe her core values are reflected in some compromise between the assumptions of her privileged upbringing and the liberal ideals she adopted as a maturing young woman. But she knows that she has had to posture as a centrist and play ball with corporate power in order to rise to her current position. She has been willing to cast votes that may seem unconscionable until you realize that she did not cast the deciding vote. In fact, a senator almost never casts a deciding vote. But a president does so every day.

Obama is a black man in America. He grew up in the educated working class, which we call the middle class; he did not grow up privileged. He has had to deal with racism and he has worked directly for the poor in community-based activism. We are not going to get a more progressive soul into the White House any time in the foreseeable future.

Edwards is a slick trial lawyer and I don't trust him, but I like what he says and maybe he's sincere. But you can be sure that if by some miracle he wins the nomination, his rhetoric will turn sharply to the Right and sound more like that of Clinton or Obama.

You have to look beneath the surface and follow your instincts in guessing what a candidate will actually be like in office, because none of them can afford to say anything at all radical while on the campaign trail.

I will vote my conscience, for Kucinich. But I will be ready to support the nominee, be it Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, because otherwise we are going to get another four years of Republican rule.

Hillary is just doing what Bill did and is telling her to do---SELL OUT THE LEFT in order to get elected playing to the Right and "Middle," while appearing (to the comatose majority) to be progressive....KUCINICH OR THE HELL WITH IT....

ezeflyer; You never cease to amaze me!

Talk about a woman with courage, integrity, and knowledge of the facts and not afraid to speak out... the flyer's right. When she regained her seat after losing one term in Congress, 'Madam Speaker" Pelosi wouldn't even give McKinney her senority back.

Want a good woman president? How about a good black woman president? Cynthia McKinney, Green Party '08!

Actually the real Hillary Clinton was disappeared by the CIA and is being held at a black site. Bill is secretly living with Monica Lewinsky and the candidate purporting to be Hillary is Joe Lieberman in drag. They have the same policies and the same hairdo.

COMarc; Excellent on your last two posts. On the first one you left out Clinton sitting on the board of Walmart, the anti-union (anti-labor) company that took out insurance policies on some of their employees and collected the money after the unknowing employee died.

More importantly, she backed Bush on the un-Constitutional Patriot Act since day one, and just about every other enabling tyrannical legislation the coward-in-chief asked for.

The whole country is going down the tubes, very fast. Dennis Kucinich has the best, progressive voting record of any candidate. And the best ideas to bring this nation back to normalcy. Mike Gravel is also good, honest and courageous, and I still think that would be a terrific ticket.

Paul Bramscher; That is why Emma Goldman resented too much regimentation, doctrine, and centralized power, knowing full well it would eventually dissolve into a corrupt group of power grabbers. Communalism, (one for all and all for one) was the message she wrote and spoke of, and in a sense is what H Buchman, in his post above ascribed to the Master Teacher, taught.

I think we can all agree on one thing; it's difficult trying to maintain an optimistic attitude anymore, but we must not give up. Eternal Vigilence.

COMarc--

This is possibly only due to a number of carefully maintained cognitive dissonances.

1) The idealistic young and Middle America Democrats are hoping that some new batch of Democrats will somehow not be constrained by the DLC/Vichy/crypto-neocons.

2) Maybe they buy the line that impeachment would be a "distraction". There just aren't "enough votes", or some such. Just elect a bunch of Democrats and our troubles will all be over.

3) They entertain political dualisms. Black vs. white, good vs. evil, Republican vs. Democrat. A Democrat, by definition, is the polar opposite to a Republican in this simplistic mindset.

4) They don't research the history of their own party. They entertain a version of The Fall, when everything was good, the good old days. But I've been unable to identify such a time in the history of either party.

etc...

It's really a credit to the powers of propaganda that we have two parties, or one party with two faces, both of which offer a slightly different way to misrepresent the class interests of the majority.

Hillary is a right wing politician. She is in many ways to the right of Nixon. It's that Goldwater Girl thing cropping up. Probably why Bill getting action elsewhere never really bothered her much. After all the right wing conservative elite hires people at the lowest possible wage to do distasteful chores for them. That Bill could find so many volunteers was something to be proud of. Walmart tried to tap into that (shitty jobs done free) when they put Hillary on the board.

That Obama is left of Hillary is one thing in his favor.

Locust, (Dec. 12th, 2007 2:44 pm)

You wrote:

>>'Progressive' invokes getting somewhere.
'Left' invokes 'out of left field' and must deal with those who are 'right'. Try winning a argument based on those ideas.>>

I agree completely. And the fact support this label and the concept it invokes.

In polls, about 30 percent self-identify as "liberal" or "progressive" while those Americans who self-identify as "socialist" or "left" are near one percent. And over 50 percent of Americans are in favor of the major parts of the progressive platform: the UN not force in international relations; abide by international law; get rid of the UN veto; get rid of all nuclear weapons; create a multiparty democracy; health care and education for all; cut back on Pentagon spending; and more.

There are over a dozen progressive caucuses in state Democratic Parties, including one I and my colleagues started in Kansas:

http://www.kansasprogressives.org

There is a Congressional Progressive Caucus. There is the group the Progressive Democrats of America. The Green Party declares itself to be progressive. The Vermont Progressive Party has real influence there.

There are no liberal caucuses in any state in the Democratic Party.

So Locust, I agree. Progressives will benefit from clearly defining and uniting around our identity as progressives and push for progressive candidates who will advocate for a new progressive regime and a new progressive era. And we need to counter the attempt by Clinton, Obama and Edwards from co-opting our identity and turning "progressive" into corporate militarism-lite.

Charles Derber's book Hidden Power is very good in framing the situation using the "regime" concept.

Here is a fine, free, online lecture by Derber about his book. It is outstanding.

http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/derber2/

Thanks Locust

Gawd, now I read further up and I see the same argument for Obama. He doesn't really believe what he says, he's just saying it to be elected. He'll be a wonderful liberal if elected. What crap.

Most of the 'left' positions are supported by large majorities of the American people when polled. That goes from single payer health care to ending the war in Iraq.

So I'm supposed to believe that Obama is going to oppose policies that he secretly believes in that are supported by large numbers of Americans because that will get him elected, but then after being elected he's going to turn on all the corporate money that backs his campaign (and that he'd be counting on to back his re-election) and suddenly reveal his secret liberal self.

Its truly amazing how desparate the lies coming from the Dems are in trying to con us into voting for the Dems just one more time.

Dem voters amaze me. Before the last election, the Dems plainly said that impeachment was off the table. But apparently all the Dem voters refused to believe what the Dems were plainly saying because they voted Dem anyways. Then act all shocked and upset because the Dems kept impeachment off the table.

And now the Dems are trying to sell the same BS all over again. Amazing.

Hillary's background.

-Rich Republican white girl who supported Nixon and Goldwater.
-A few years of being kinda liberal as a young adult supporting MLK and opposing the Vietnam war.
-Time spent as a scheming power-hungry corporate attorney.
-Time spent doing anything for power in the Gov's office and the White House
-Founding force in the DLC that turns the Dems into Republican lites
-In the white house, pushes the corporate agenda. Passes the trade agreements that send our jobs overseas, and the telecom bill that creates today's media concentrations just to name a few bad deeds.
-completely missing in action on progressive causes as a US Senator. Votes to start these wars, to fully fund the Pentagon and is a reliable vote for the corporate agenda.

But hey, I'm supposed to believe that the few years she spent as a rich, liberal wannabe in her twenties represents her true beliefs. Yeah right. I've got a nice bridge to sell anyone who believes that.

Saying that Kucinich would 'say anything to win' is the truly preposterous statement. That tells me you are either a blatant political hack that has no respect for the truth, or you've never bothered to pay any attention at all to Kucinich's campaigns for President.

The really bizarre part of the Dems argument is that we are supposed to accept and be proud of Hillary for lying. The bizarre part is that we are supposed to vote for a candidate who opposes us on almost everything in the strange belief that she's really lying to get elected and that after the elections she's suddenly going to unveil beliefs she's never expressed, turn 180 degrees from the track record of the Dem party for the last 20 years, and completely shaft all the big contributors who just paid for her to become President and whom she'd be counting on to pay for her re-election 4 years later. That has got to be the stupidest and most desperately pathetic argument to support a candidate I've ever heard of.

Support Hillary, the best liar that money can buy! Is that really the best message the Dems can scrape from the bottom of the DLC barrel these days?

The crux of the problem may well be that those most desirable as leaders have no interest in the job. And the converse holds true as well. Those who suck up to power are those who represent the top (the minority), not the majority. One certainly cannot answer to both. The relationship, one way or the other, is a lie.

So 'johncpt', what you are really saying is that we should all be wonderfully happy if a pro-war, pro-corporate rightwinger gets elected president as long as they have a (D) after their name.

Personally, I don't see why the letter after the name matters a bit. And if a (D) is going to screw me over just like an (R), then I really could care less if the (D)'s or the (R)'s are in power.

I'd rather fight for something I believe in. I'd even rather lose fighting for something I believe in. Because waging that fight is the only way to eventually win. Its the only way to start to build a movement to change things.

If everyone just gets onboard and supports one rightwinger over another rightwinger because one is a (D) and one is an (R), then the only thing you are guaranteeing is that the next election after that will only offer the same choices of corporate-backed rightwingers. The only way to change that is to stop accepting evil, even if its the marginally lessor kind and start to fight and build for something we believe in.

Remember, Hillary was first a Republican. She worked for the Nixon campaign in 1960, and for the Goldwater campaign of 1964. She grew up a rich girl, raised in a Republican methodist house, and was schooled in elite private schools. That's her background, her roots. She seems to have played at being a liberal Dem for awhile, but that ended long before NAFTA and WTO.

Bill was elected first as the boy wonder governor of Arkansas. He was the youngest governor in the country, and probably one of the youngest ever. They served 2 year terms there, and politically his first term was a disaster. The Clinton's did try some liberal things, and for that they were booted out of office at the end of the first two years. Corporate money and the good ol boys didn't like their liberal education ideas, etc.

That's when Hillary and Bill made their decision. Power was more important than principles. They wanted back into the Gov's mansion, and the way to do it was to toady up to the corporate powers. In Arkansas, that especially means Tyson chicken. So, they made themselves all attractive to the corporate money, abandoned any liberal principles except for show, and cut the deals and made the alliances that got them back to the Gov's mansion and on the road to White House. Who cares if some chicken processing workers lost their hands in unsafe plants.

She had decided that being the servant of corporate power was ok, as long as it led to personal power and position, long before they got to the White House and pushed through the corporate wish list of NAFTA, WTO, terrorism bills, welfare reform, illegal wars, expanded police powers, etc, etc, etc.

Byrne; I certainly agree with you. Parenti is one of the top three in my book. Also had the honor to hear him speak about four years ago, and much of what he said then has come to pass. I hope people take your advice and read some of his stuff or listen to his tapes.

PJD; John Sayles movie, "Matewan" was a realistic portrayal of the UMWA struggle against the corporatists and the tactics and brutality used on the mine workers. I wonder if you have seen it.

My god, how sensitive leftists are, to any level of criticism. Hillary's statement was precisely on the money. She said, Obama was "...too far to the left to win the presidency." Did she say she "felt" that way? Did she say she sympathized with the right wing opposition to candidates that ran too far to the left to win the presidency? Of course not. But nearly everyone on this list is brimming with anger and contempt for Hillary. Now they see her for what she "really" is: namely, a rightwinger. If, as half the people on this list claim, she'll "say anything to win," doesn't that signal her strategy to you? If she said this about Obama, in order to win, does that mean she belives what she said, or doesn't believe it? I'm sorry folks, but you people are mostly a bunch of wackos, that can't think clearly. I'm more, not less inclinced to vote for Hillary. You people don't have any f...ing idea what Hillary thinks, only what she says. Saying that Hillary will say anthing the win, is preposterous, since to believe such nonsense, you'd have to tell me, with a straight face, that Obama or Edwards, or Richardson, or Kucinich, or Dodd, or Biden would "not" say anything to win. You bet your ass, I want someone that will "win" against the republicans, or do everything in her power to try to. Hillary has raised over 100 million dollars, of "our" money, to win this election. Do you want her to say things that will cause her to lose the election? Why the f..k would she do that? If pretending to side with "moderates" is more likely to get her the nomination, why would she side with anyone else? You people don't understand the dirty business of winning presidential elections. You expect candidates to "tell the truth," and lose, and you allow the worst bastards in the world to win, because their lies win the elections. If Clinton must tell tell lies to win the election, which do you want her to do? Make up your f...ing minds: do you want her to lie, when she has to, and get a much better chance of winning the election? Or do you want her to "always tell you what 'you want to hear,'" or tell you "the truth," and almost certainly lose the election? All politicians lie. If there's anything we know about them, it's that they lie, almost constantly. The question is, on whose behalf to they tell they lies they tell us? Are you dumb enough to believe that Hillary is running for the presidency, so that she can better serve "her corporate masters." If you believe such bullshit, you deserve creeps like Bush.

I don't think it's pandering so much as indicative of her "job". The Bilderbergs, or whoever/whatever they/it are, "select" candidates to keep Americans voting contrary to their own class interests.

Whoever can keep the majority furthest away from their interests is the one who magically wins.

Wow, nightslider ... its always nice to see the sheer nastiness and hatred of the Democratic Party get brought out into the light of day so everyone can see the true nature of that beast. My only question is why anyone who is anywhere close to believing in peace and justice would want to be anywhere near a group of nasty f#@E%# like nightslider and the Dems.

Desperation makes people do and say strange things.

It would be good if the lady stops both her doublespeak and trying to say what she thinks everyone wants to hear. Thats pandering, a tactic that has simply never worked.

Keep on going Obama, especially since Mrs, Clinton has already peaked and can now go in only one direction - south.

God is iis ever great to see the Naderites paying homage to an Empty suit, YOU bags of discarded fecal matter couldn't think straight even with your picture flash cards printed in English, instead of the gibberish you spew 24/7, get a life the bastard cant even tie his show laces without lying about it and to have a bag of hot air defend his non-voting record as the man for change, GOD how FUNNT hanh ah ah ah ah ahha ahahaha h aha ahaha ahaha ahahah he aint prime time material. When he is actually confronted with the voting country at large they'll slap him to the rear of the bus where he belongs, OHHH has he taken moneyies from the RNC like Nader did yet.

HE will

Cee Miracles December 12th, 2007 4:06 pm

"Whatever happened to your heart, Hillary, when it belonged to Eleanor Roosevelt and all her great commitment and actions on behalf of The People?"

It died when her husband signed the U.S. on to the WTO and NAFTA and she, along with all the other complicit politicians on Capitol Hill received "insider" information from the Wall Street Gang.

We all know what a bang-up job the Democrats did on the Ethics Reform Bill! Isn't it too bad they can't get free lunches anymore.....what a hardship!

Hillary knows the true center. We WANT to be screwed by the insurance companies. We WANT to nuke Iran. We care more about the Middle East than Middle America.

Oh, I guess we don't. Bill didn't inhale, but he evidently passed it onto her.

All I can say to the "the election might be canceled" people is this:

Worse than martial law or a canceled election would be a totally co-opted "opposition." Indeed, it would be politically far easier, far less risky, to simply co-opt the opposition. Cancel the election outright and you might have patriots on the left AND right coming together. Turn the whole thing into a charade, and you'll continue to fool the majority.

For a certain amount of time, anyway.

I think it becomes clear when you compare Obama's past policy positions with his current ones, that he IS running a campaign in the mold of a George Bush campaign, selling himself as a product that most middle americans can relate to without coming across as too scary or left wing. It's got to be hard enough running in this country as a black man, but a black man supporting what i believe his true values are would be a death sentence for his campaign. I think that should Obama be elected he would actually govern far to the left of his current stated positions. He's a very smart man, and so far, i think he is running a very smart campaign. of course, i could just be overly optimistic. Now if only he didn't vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill....

When are they ALL on BOTH SIDES (Dems and Repubs) GROW UP and realize that we are NOT IDIOTS and what we want and need is DEBATE, and NOT SENSATIONALISM in FLAMBOYA

TNT POSTURING against each other?

I am THOROUGHLY DISGUSTED with that in ALL of them.

Fundamentally, I'd LOVE for us to have a black or a woman for President but I cannot sanction someone JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK OR FEMALE as someone I should vote for, and when you come down to it, given how they're acting, they don't leave us much less than those points, between the two of them.

They both "attack" each other and it's just a matter of whom you believe is correct. Not a good factor to judge whom to vote on by.

That leaves: EDWARDS whom I'm leaning more and more toward. No, no perfect, but but less I see him do what these two are doing the more I lean his way.

I'd like my money back please, this mutant nation has two right wings.
How on earth do you ever expect it to fly?
Genetically modified politics is not a pretty sight.
I predict that the next president of the USA will be called IAN.

TotalitarIAN!

If that woman thinks she can win the presidency by attacking the left,she nuts. What will happen if we just decide to stay home on election day! Many on the left are convinced that this system will fall under its own weight. It matters not if a right wing Repub. is in the white house or a right wing Dem..
I could never vote for a Repub. but if Cinton doesn"t change her tune, I will leave the lever for pres. unmoved, if she is on the ballot

cyberbrook

Thank you very much for pointing out that Ron Paul is a complete asshole. I can't believe the number of so-called "progressives" who support this reactionary fool.

Her eyes are not lined up.

Mike Gravel, yes, seems like a striaght shooter.

Unfortunately, Reagan's getting Alzheimers while in office pretty much scorched the earth for anyone over 70 being elected.

You couldn't pay me enough for me to vote for either of them, as they are still TOO FAR RIGHT.

Considering that the right wing extremists have been running the show, the only way to bring the political scale into balance would be to elect left wing extremists.

And since none are running, good luck!

Dennis Kucinich lost my goodwill when he suggested taking the anti-choice, Bible-thumping Ron Paul as a VP.

Why are so few people on the progressive side aware of Mike Gravel? Please look at him as a serious choice, also.