You are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine. What I posted is a fact ___ it did happen, it is history and I did not alter it. There is no reason for you to attack me for what I posted, unless you are just stirring up trouble, which is precicely what trolls do here. If you are not one, don't act like one. If you live in an out house, you smell like an outhouse. That is my other point, Sir know it all DOUGWAGNER.

And that's why Ralph Nader is willing to endorse Edwards for president. The only reason Ralph Nader ran on these issues is because no one else was, and they needed to be addressed.

I'm waiting to hear from the Nader haters about this, but I won't hold my breath, because they always need to blame someone else for their own shortcomings - that is, voting for corporate shills, and then blaming anyone else for getting what they vote for - a corporate shill. It hardly matters which party a corporate shill belongs to, it's still a corporate shill.

Of course, George is in a separate class, a megalomaniac who arrived dressed in drag. Another person who makes me uneasy is Hillary. I don't like hidden agendas.

Too bad this article didn't appear in USA Today or the NY Times; it's infuriating the way the corporate media is imposing a blackout on John Edwards by harping on the Clinton/Obama clash.

And particularly shocking when you learn that last week's polls, which pitted Democratic candidates against Republicans (instead of each other), showed Edwards BEATING EVERY GOP candidate, and by better margins, than any other Democrat!!

John,

I grew up in Madison, Wisconsin. I used to respect you. But your ongoing and thinly-veiled ignorance of Dennis Kucinich's platform and campaign have made me become suspect even of The Nation's political stature as the voice of the people.

Step up to the plate. Stop ignoring Kucinich's candidacy. If you have well-founded and well-reasoned reservations about supporting him, speak up. But your blindered editorials have become tiring for lack of awareness. You risk becoming part of the dark underbelly of the MSM, as does your magazine. Do your homework, and step up to the plate: your words still merit reading, in my personal opinion. But my patience is not eternal.

For anyone interested in facts or Edwards record as a US Senator you may find interesting that he voted for the Bush/Cheney Energy Plan; he voted to defund renewables; he supports the death penalty; he stands against equal rights for gay people: meaning he opposses gay marriage. The League of Conservation Voters who track voting records never gave him better than a 34% rating on the environment. He once voted to cut off debate on CAFE Standards for the benifit of his corporate handlers in the auto industry. Now Edwards tells us he is a born again anti corporate populist. At least until their money hits his bank account and then watch him flip flop right back in their laps.

Any one who thinks Edwards is going to reign in big money is living in a dream world.

BeForKids writes:

"And that's why Ralph Nader is willing to endorse Edwards for president. The only reason Ralph Nader ran on these issues is because no one else was, and they needed to be addressed".

No truer words have been written!!!

thewonderingyou:

Of interest to you: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/editors

John Nichols has been with D.K. in New Hampshire on http://www.kucinichtv.com and CONSTANTLY stopped sort of endorsing him in all venues. WHY?! Could it be his magazine's policy? I have NO DOUBT that he is a FIRM Kucinich backer!
Maybe he is being a "real" journalist by not endorsing a personal choice? I just don't know.

Stephen V. Riley: Are you ignoring Kucinich also. The statement about Edwards "alone" is NOT true!

Funny... Dennis Kucinich has been saying the same thing for years but only when Edwards mentions it, does it get coverage.

I've been an Edwards man from the start. While my progressive friends are arguing over Clinton and Obama and give me funny looks when I state my case for Edwards.

Now, if Edwards would just come out for Kucinich's Single Payer Health Care system, he'd be perfect.

If Iowans are going to continue their unsustainable petro-fired destruction of Americans' physical health through "cheap" beef, destruction of the Great Plains topsoil and Mississipi delta ecosystems, depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer, and destruction of livelihoods of tens of thousands of farmers practicing centuries-old sutainable agriculture traditions, then Iowans might as well vote for the political candidates who will keep the petro-fires stoked. Disastrous behavior should at least be consistent.

Huck,
John Edwards is very honest about admitting his past mistakes, starting with his vote to invade Iraq. Apparently, you haven't seen his policy booklet which has a section on gay/lesbian equal rights (yes, he stops short of endorsing gay marriage, but he's almost there--his wife Elizabeth already is--it's just a matter of semantics). He's been endorsed by Friends of the Earth, his past votes notwithstanding (he's against nuclear and coal power). So, yes, he's changed, and for the better, on some issues. But he also has a record of fighting for the poor and middle class. If we want change in Washington, we can start by electing someone who is running on donations and public money. The bottom line is that he's the best viable candidate (sorry DK supporters). I wish Ralph Nader would endorse Edwards ahead of the Iowa caucuses and NH primary, it would give him the visibility he needs (as the mainstream media is only interested in the Clinton-Obama race). Then again, Nader has a lot of ill-will, so it may not be the endorsement Edwards needs.

It makes sense to me that the corporte media would limit the exposure of an anti-corporate candidate. I don't like it, but there is a long history of how the media (mis)shapes the information we have, the decisions we make, and the world we live in.

We are taking power away from the mainstream media by having this discussion. In the past, we would read an article and that was it.

This is more democratic.

Thanks to everyone who is participating.

Edwards/Kucinich

Edwards/Nader? :)

mcpete December 27th, 2007 3:41 pm

Edwards/Kucinich

Although D.K. will ALWAYS be my first choice, I could live with that.
Then in 2016: Kucinich/Sheehan

max said:
"John Edwards is very honest about admitting his past mistakes, starting with his vote to invade Iraq."

I wish he would admit his mistake in supporting marihuana prohibition and the racist, fascist WOD.

Otherwise, if Nader supports him, that could be good enough for me.

>>> Nichol writes ...[what] should matter most in the race to replace not just George W. Bush, but the Bush agenda of corporate giveaways, job-crushing free trade deals, war profiteering in Iraq...

And that is exactly the issue. If you vote for Hillary you are still supporting the Bush agenda, but now Hillary will be overseeing it.

I would like to see Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader's views brought into the larger discussion which would hit at the core of what needs to change. As an Iraqi once said of the regime change in Iraq (after Saddam was removed and the US was 'in charge') was this, 'Different jockey, same camel.'

If we just get another mainstream democrat in it will just be business as usual, just a different jockey.

We need a fundamental change in why and how we do things. Corporations and greed have never taken this country forward other than let us be entertained with our video games while the injustice and wars continue.

peace and justice
AG

I guess Edwards' anti-corporate stance doesn't extend to insurance companies however, since his plan is right in there with the other 'corporate' candidates' (except DK)--insurance company welfare thru mandated health insurance. On that basis alone, I can't vote for him.

John Nichols advocates impeachment for Bush.

He should know, however, that Edwards voted for the Patriot Act and the Resolution supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Neither Edwards, Obama, or Clinton do it for me. If either Kucinich or Paul run as independents, they will get my vote.

John Edwards, I'm behind you, and you've got a fighting chance to make it to the White House!

the core issue of current political activity must be the economic collapse. edwards fails this litmus test i fear.

I prefer Dennis Kucinich too but would consider vooting for Edwards. Anyone who would consider voiting for Ron Paul (especially over Edwards) isn't paying attention to the fact that he's a xenophobic, racist, anti-science Christer.

I can't understand why so many people are taken in by oily trial lawyer and undistinguished centrist former senator John Edwards. Are they fooled by his cheesy smile and televangelist swagger? Or just by his last-minute pandering words to the left? Is there anything in his Senate record to support his pledge that he'll fight for the little guy against corporate interests? Does he even tell us how he'll do that? Has any candidate ever made an emptier campaign pledge?

And what does Edwards's last-minute surge mean? Good news for Hillary Clinton, I think. This is coming out of Obama's potential support. A man with genuine, unmistakable progressive credentials is losing ground to a man who not only doesn't have the bona fides, but is notably unconvincing in his assumed role, just because Obama is following a strategy to win the presidency, while Edwards is desperately clawing his way into the race for Democratic nominee. And the likely result is to boost the least progressive of the three.

to all you kucinich supporters out there (including myself), what a novel concept for an edwards/kucinich ticket. and for all you edwards supporters, why not convince your man that the only snowball in hell chance he has against hellbent hillary is in fact to team up with the only possible choice to help him get elected. really, it's all about how badly somebody wants something. if edwards wants it, this is the way. and mr. kucinich, seriously, you are the only candidate with a grasp on reality. unfortunately, we're not dealing with reality. we're dealing with a country full of moronic sheople, wandering aimlessly. we need a shepherd and a guard dog. that, amongst this crop of candidates, is edwards/kucinich.

Far be it from me to suggest what should be changed and how to change it. I do know that with corporate interference in our government, we will pay and pay and pay. They have been allowed to write the rules, appoint who will represent us and make us pay the way. At least 7 Presidents warned us of corporate interference.
My selection for the next President is John Edwards. His rhetoric appears to be in the right direction. "You can't live with them and you can't live without them." They will be here always, but KEEP THEM OUT OF GOVERNMENT!! Their money talks and it is the responsibility of our Justice Department to regulate corporations activity in dealing with the Government. It took them years to penetrate the right places. They have the resources and patience, we can't wait that long. Instead of beautiful speeches and trying to look their best before the House Cameras, they need to act, act, act, act. TELL THEM !!!!

Jaded Prole,

I love your ad hominem "logic."

Ron Paul is against the War on Drugs. He would decriminalize marijuana at a minimum for medical use.

Ron Paul is against imperialism and wants to pull ALL of our troops out of foreign countries.

Ron Paul is against all forms of government intrusion into our privacy. Specifically he wants to repeal the Patriot Act, the National (real) ID Act, restore Habeus Corpus, and eliminate NSA wiretapping, eavesdropping, biometric databases, and the use of NSA satellites against the American people. He also says he would support measures to outlaw any practice of torture.

On Meet the Press, Paul stated that the U.S. is creeping towards fascism and suggested that this fascism wasn't a virulent form, but a subtle "soft" form. He gave this form a name: corporatism.

This says it all for me: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22378876#22378876

Name on f__kin Democrap that will do that (with the exception of Dennis Kucinich - and I'm not even sure he'll go that far).

ah, logrithmic,
sadly, last i heard, and read, ron paul is pro-life. that means he is part of a large group of twisted individuals who believe they have the right to dictate to women what their personal rights are. therein, pardon the pun, lies the rub.

When it comes to politicians, I do not listen much to what they SAY. I look back at what they have DONE. There is a BIG difference between Edwards, the candidate and Edwards, what he has actually done. He sounds good on the stump, but his record shows that he has not gotten anything done.

Mr. Kucinich has my admiration. He is a man of principles & sticks to them. Unfortunetly that reflects in what he has been able to accomplish. Unfortunetly politics is the art of compromise. To get something done, you sometimes have to be willing to accept less than what you want in order to advance your cause closer to what you want.
I know that it sucks, but that is the way it is. Edwards talks how he will fight the system and get things done. The man is on drugs! He will get his butt kicked by the system. Anyone who thinks otherwise is smoking some pretty strong stuff.

If you are looking for a candidate who will be able to get stuff done, you need to look at Chris Dodd. He is also a man of principles. Remember, Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd & Obama all promised to vote against a FISA bill that included amnesty for the telecom companies, but it was only Chris Dodd who rushed back to Washington to fight the bill on the Senate floor for 11 hours before it was taken off the table. This man a true patriot! He defended our Constitution for us when even his own party was going to knuckle under to Bush. Senator Dodd has a long history of getting things done because he knows how to work with both sides to get things done. He might not be as good looking as Edwards or maybe his speeches don't sound so populist, but the man knows how to get things done. Results count! Isn't that what we REALLY want? A man with principles who knows how to get things done! Maybe he won't go out and "kick the systems ass", he will just get things done and he won't let the Constitution get trampled anymore!

We ALL would love to see the world change to the pie in the sky world that we want to have. I too would love to see a lot of major changes made, BUT I am a realist enough to know that is just not going to happen. We have to work within the system to get things done. Candidates can say that they are going to do this or going to do that, but unless they have the experience of knowing how to get things done, they are doomed to failure. We don't need to hear any more talk, we need to elect a man who will never violate our Constitutional rights, who will work with all sides to get the peoples work done! Chris Dodd is that man!!!

Paul is against abortion. I'm not saying I agree with everything he stands for. But I do agree with 85% of what he stands for - especially those issues he stresses in his current run for president - an executive run amok, the creeping fascism at home, an illegal and imperial foreign policy, and the virtual evisceration of the Constitution.

Think about it folks! The Democraps, including Clinton, voted for the Military Commission Act. What is that you say? Here's what it does:

See link: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7622

"In a White House ceremony, George Bush signed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) now known as "the torture authorization act," but it's more far-reaching than that. It grants the administration extraordinary unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate and prosecute alleged terror suspects and anyone claimed to be their supporters. It also lets the President call anyone anywhere in the world an "unlawful enemy combatant" and empowers him to arrest and incarcerate those accused indefinitely in military prisons without needing corroborating evidence proving guilt. The law states for persons detained that "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever.... relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission....including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions."

MCA further scraps habeas protection (dating back to 1215 in the Magna Carta) for domestic and foreign enemies of the state, citizens and non-citizens alike, and says "Any person is punishable... who....aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures" and in so doing helps a foreign enemy, provides "material support" to alleged terrorist groups, engages in spying, or commits other offenses previously handled in civil courts.

Other key elements of the act include:

-- legalizing torture against anyone and lets the President decide what procedures can be used on his own authority;

-- denying detainees international law protection and lets the executive interpret it;

-- empowering the President to convene "military commissions" to try anyone he designates an "unlawful enemy combatant," and hold them in secret detention indefinitely;

--denying speedy trials or any at all;

-- allowing evidence obtained by torture or coerced testimony to be used against detainees in trial proceedings;

-- permitting hearsay and secret evidence to be used; and

-- denying due process, destroying human dignity, mocking the rule of law, and establishing the principle of kangaroo court justice for anyone the executive targets."

Your rights under the Constitution have been obliterated. And, as some have pointed out, without Dodd's threat of a filibuster, the Democraps would've rolled over and let a new FISA law become law, one that would forgive lawbreaking by the telecomm companies!

In addition, has as been written about here on Common Dreams, the Democraps lined up behind this new Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism bill. This bill will permit the drawing up of legislation to further disempower the American people.

You know, yes, abortion is an important right. But so are all of the rights we have based on the Constitution. These rights are being gutted and Paul is the only candidate running who has made and objection to this a centerpiece of his campaign. He sure has my vote if he becomes an independent.

Here is what Nader said not what he is purported to have said: take the entire thing in context people and note his attacks on the Democrat Party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=77200&mesg_id=77200

I supported Dodd in his fight against the revised FISA. But where was the filibuster on the Military Commissions Act? On the Patriot Act? Etc.? Nowhere...

Dodd is also heavily tied to the banking industry. That's right, the same group that gave us the subprime mess and is now looking for a taxpayer bailout. Sad but true.

With the one exception of Kucinich,I don't know a single Democrat that is not in bed with the corporations.

In the this story that I am writing and speaking about it becomes clear that the lag time of science to accurately report its findings is part of the problem. But even if they had had this data before the special interests in Washington the corporate world would have scoffed at the science and continued to put future generations at risk. This science is only acceptable because the world has accepted the findings of global warming. That is the other 170 nations not the USA

The time lag of a thousands years makes science affecting the oceans completely unimportant when a lag of only ten years to reduce emissions by 80% seems to me more difficult to achieve because of the economic issues. if we are to avoid the tipping point the positive backs loops must be avoided if possible but the American Enterprise Institute, scoffs at this because of economic reasons. An entire change in the global economic patterns will have to change and not one of the candidates of the guts to come out with it and not Edwards either.

From the issues of Energy, getting at least 80MPG and changing CAFÉ standards is just the beginning of the changes necessary and we need a person with courage and the ability to stand up and show America that he has the courage to fight all big business , who does not pay taxes, and exports all jobs wherever the profit margin is best. Iowa heard Edwards when he said he would fight special interests. Almost every problem we can look at has its roots in the values of the corporate world and how they have distorted all values towards their own ends of making profit. For example, the acidity in the oceans is bad news not only for the life within the ocean but for the fact that it makes the ocean less able to absorb the excess carbon dioxide and therefore exacerbates global warming and climate change.

The UN, like most organizations built around the G8 nations and economics which is the number one issue not only to fight global poverty. The UN Goals are designed to do two things try the save humanity and try to save the world economy at the same time. The Kyoto treaty is problematic in that its policies promote continued pollution aimed at keeping the world economy afloat. It is economics that keeps the USA from joining. If the UN were really interested at saving this planet the UN would do away with pollution trading altogether and institute a crash rapid change to alternative energy and an end to global toxicity. But that is the truth and diplomacy is the method of compromise and lies. Politicians really just let you think they care, they want you to think, as all diplomats do. that they are really interested in change.

I have talked with delegates from the UN member nations and many of them have said to me if they really said what some of us NGO's are saying that would be recalled and never have a job again. Most comments are very nice to hear but like the Congress they also come down beside the point as most politicians do. Like most comments from the present Congress and in the blogs or wherever they avoid reality and don't deal with the issue head on. Most are still looking for the magic technological bullet or some disingenuous politician that will save all and we can continue on the way we are going with ever more growth and ever more and greater GDP as the bankers advise. Any candidate that does not talk about environmental issues first on the agenda, including Kucinich, betrays America and the world. BUT IF ANYONE THINKS THAT BIG BUSINESS WILL CHANGE FORGET IT! MONEY AND PROFIT AND POWER. . .THAT ALL!

But there really there isn't any quick fix. I am a filmmaker and have worked on the environmental change issues since 1978 so I have a fair amount of experience to speak. While LED light-bulbs is good and 40 MPG for cars is better it is not the at least the 80MPG that is necessary and refits for all existing cars rather than exporting them to the developing world which is presently being done and will pick up speed as restrictions rise in the western world. We continue to export the problem from the USA to other countries as if we don't share this world with other people. And while Jesse Jackson talks of the black people of the world, his particular crusade its the people of the entire world at issue.

It was GE that killed the electric car not long ago who in Congress who complained about that? INSTEAD THE BIG 3 IN DETROIT INTRODUCED THE HUMMMER. Whether health care, environment, energy alternatives, toxicity in the environment or any and all of these it comes down to who has the courage to talk about all of them rather than focusing on the head of a pin the one important issue to avoid dealing with the others. Like health Care for example but lets talk about health care? The advance of environmentally based health problems by a toxic environment and air related pandemics is what we are looking at in the next few years with rising temperatures. The candidates are discussing universal health care? Try that on for the global health care because what's there will very soon be here because all the sicknesses have been on the rise because of the policies of the USA. Here try this fact on, three percent of the world's population the USA, produces seventy three percent of global toxicity. You wonder where cancer comes from?

The people of the USA have been so ill informed as to what true change would really do and mean to this country and the change in leadership. Mr. Present bad president has taken your mind away from the really important problems by creating a false war and rejecting all the great innovation and industry. America could have been in the forefront by building innovation with manufacturing aimed at environmental invention to reduce global warming. New jobs and technology for America by saving the environment rather than making it worse. No one could be worse than George Bush. . . No one not even the dog catcher, at least the dog catcher has compassion for animals!

The real problem is not Kucinich as president, the problem is that he puts his emphasis on the wrong problem at the wrong time. The problem is getting him to address a credible platform of ideas. I say to him while impeachment is necessary, it is unlikely. There is not enough time and the issues most pressing are again avoided, like the environment and those really important issues before the congress now like kids health care! The issue of this election will affect the environment, economy and the future of the USA as no others. Yet if more than 50% of eligible voters cast their votes it will be a miracle because of regressive US election laws. It is compulsory for every one to vote in Australia. None of the candidates are really talking on the major points of the environment in association with the economy or health care and reform laws for elections.

The environmental news coming out is not new but it is very grave and keeps being pushed to more urgency as new research comes to light. If any one reading this comment cares to look at the website of NASA, the research papers of James Hansen in particular that were published long before Gore was on the scene and many since, they would understand that we really can not deal with much more than one degree to two and half degrees Fahrenheit of warming at its maximum to ward off the most serious effects of industrial societies pollution and to offset this growing catastrophe.

At about two and half degrees warming which is presently in the pipeline we will be dealing with about 550 ppm of carbon in the atmosphere, at the turn of the century perhaps more. Since industry will not cut back without governments legislating it. We will actually go above the tipping point of one and half degrees warming. The courage to slow the economy and turn its direction is what is necessary. To keep the global temperature at no more than 430 ppm , the absolute figure to avoid the major positive feedback loops, it will require economic changes most nations, including CHINA will not make! Therefore the start of the catastrophe is scheduled to kick in by 2020 or earlier if nothing is done quickly. Positive feedback are starting now with Methane now being released on the tundra at four times the addition to greenhouse gasses and causing the poles and glaciers to melt more rapidly, or has no one noticed?

The below scenario excerpted from the climate articles here on Common Dreams tell us clearly without rapid change runaway climate change and their feedback loops are in reach within 10 to 30 years if nothing is done rapidly. The positive feedback loops will melt the remainder of the glaciers and perhaps dump Greenland into the sea as well. Also, the melting of additional ice-shelf's at the poles. That means perhaps a 3 to 30 foot ocean rise by the end of this century, but the process is beginning now and in 20 years or less without rapid change in economic direction the human race will reach a point of no return. The so called news and other media continue to bend the information toward the global economic agenda thus minimizing its importance. India for example is less concerned about climate change than they are about economic production thanks to the G8, although their neighbor Bangladesh is slipping into the sea . Still in India, there are several moves in the direction of smaller is better concepts of reality. GOOD BUT POSSIBLY TOO LATE!

There will be sufficient human displacement of people on this planet to bring American citizens into a nightmare scenario that makes the present Mexican border problem a walk in the park. What about the transfer of health risks as a result of this problem? Not to mention water and food related issues and the economy, always the economy.

Yet is seems the political discussion rests on the complete list of talking points in isolation, such as Clinton's health package and its cost, rather than what is really at stake which is human survival. These folks on the stage wanting to be president rarely talk to the complete interrelated package of all these issues and more. The media reduces the public debate to its most simplistic level and all here are arguing about one issue or another rather than the entire package which a true leader must address. The media keeps the public dumbed down for obvious reasons they represent the money people. As a result we become unable to talk about moving radically to deal with climate change the first and major issue which affects all other issues and is completely related to economic change.

The world does not have (much later) before a more aggressive approach to all the issues beginning with climate change! Remember New Orleans many more of those and nothing is being done there, the USA is trying to make Pakistan a democracy instead. Within next 10 to 20 years is where it all hangs. If nothing is done very soon it will mark the beginning of the end for the human race. Those appear to be the facts and no technology will stop runaway climate change once it begins, indeed if we look at the melting poles the worst case is much more apparent than formerly believed . . .it has already begun!!

Perhaps it might be too late now, according to James Lovelock, in his view the feedback loops have begun. James Hansen at NASA makes a very compelling case for the time frame for action, 8 to 10 years, the term of the next president of the USA and that is why who it is so important! I think anyone who really wishes to be informed should go to the websites of these people mentioned, the IPCC of James Hansen, NASA. It is technical information but worth taking the time to inform yourself. The answer is to start working quickly for change and vote for those candidates who speak of change and another direction and who represent ideas rather than special interests.

For example the best work would be to defeat the pro-business Clintons and elect Kucinich or Obama or possibly a joint ticket while we know they have an outside chance they are the best possibility for change. But we all know business interests will prevail with Clinton capturing the vote and a pro-business vote is a vote against the environment. No one running on the democratic side could be worse than Bush.

But anyone who can think understands that the business interests control the environmental agenda and most candidates. The republicans will continue the work of burying the planet as will pro-business democratic candidates most of whom have been bought, whether by health interests or anything else concerning big money.

The facts concerning climate science is what is important. What the environmental facts really suggest is economic depression in the West in the near term if we want to save the world. There really is no quick fix do you think Wall Street or all of you out there with your 401ks will take a chance? But if we are really serious about saving the planet (no one wants to hear that if they are connected to big money) it means voting for economic and environmental legislation limiting pollution and green house gasses and taking another direction in terms of the economic picture. . .in any event that is change!

But the environment, water, energy production these are the real issues of this election campaign but no one would dare mention them in association with change in economic direction for fear of defeat. A redirection and a retooling of the global economy and of America is in order and that is not a popular issue on Wall street or people invested in Wall street. . .most everyone in one way or another.

We have to change rapidly and move to a none-stop production of environmental invention and energy alternatives for the western world and developing nations rapidly. It also means rapid technology transfer for the developing world without delay, this may save us some time. A cut of 80% of the carbon emissions within the next 10 years is in order and it must be done beginning now and well on the way before 2012 the next date for Kyoto. Kyoto is a western world fabrication to tell us we can keep polluting while where figuring a way to deal with this crisis economically.

A change of the present direction of economic production and fast move in a different direction economically is required by anyone that can think and put simple figures in context of this crisis. The world is waiting for this move by the Americans and watch the dollar rise rapidly against other currencies once this plan would be announced if ever. This is why this upcoming election is so critical and the results of it will determine whether the human race survives. . . . It is that critical!

The economic change in direction could possibly reemploy a lot of people who have lost their work in the polluting industries. This is the challenge to America to remake itself after eight years of the Bush/Cheney regime. It is equivalent to a fight for survival that required the retooling of America at the outbreak of WW 2. It requires change in the so-called war on terror, a Bush fabrication advanced by the media which is a money centered mind conditioning creation and finally, it means leaving Iraq, and using those resources to fight the real enemy to survival, the western consumer, hydro carbon based, societies of the western world.

Who knows that might mean less of an investment in China and more of an investment the western world for a healthier environment? And the Chinese might follow that example as well.

Which candidate will say this to America? Which candidate will really tell the truth? If they did they wouldn't have a chance in this election because Americans don't want to hear that! Any one having the courage to really tell the truth would find themselves on the next train to Siberia; they would be shouted down by the crowds of people on the stump and many on this blog. saying what the hell do you know anyway? "This is too scary for me!"

But the economy is the issues and that is determined by the war in Iraq. The illegal Bush-war that Kucinich wants to impeach Bush/Cheney for creating but takes us into another direction and one not well thought out. He is focused on the lies of Bush rather than the future of the world.

The production of alternative energy will soak up the idle job market, indeed it is doing so now! With a shift to the priority of economic production and development directed at saving this world and its equilibrium, means in simple terms a crash economic change which is vitally necessary, without that we are done. If any one thinks that we can continue with an oil economy and business as usual with a consumer based society, they are living in the world of denial which so much of the western world occupies. The below is a light message compared with what the truth really is: from UN sources of information!

"The world needs to spend 1.6 percent of global economic output annually through 2030 to stabilize the carbon stock and meet the 3.6-degree Fahrenheit temperature target. Rich countries, the biggest carbon emitters, should lead the way and cut emissions at least 30 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Developing nations should cut emissions 20 percent by 2050, the UNDP says."

The above is letting you down lightly is really not what the actual projections are. The world crisis will crash in on its regional global populations is what the information below is saying. There really is no place in this discussion for a 5.4 to 7.2 Fahrenheit degree rise in temperature. . . .this scenario painted with the these numbers below is a different planet closer to Mars not Earth. The news media play with numbers like the lottery. We can tolerate one degree and perhaps two and half degrees warming at the outside, . . .in the next 50 to 90 years. . .that's it!!!!! An additional 3 degrees to four degrees Fahrenheit is three more degrees greater than this climate and its creatures can sustain or endure without collapse!! This quoted from the recent UN assertions here in Common Dreams and from the real information by scientists not political organization:

"a temperature rise of between 5.4 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (3 and 4 degrees Celsius) would displace 340 million people through flooding, droughts would diminish farm output, and retreating glaciers would cut off drinking water from as many as 1.8 billion people, the report says." this is an understatement and conservative.

The above report is economically associated and conservative as well as misleading!!! Forget this idea of 5.4 to 7.2 Fahrenheit of warming that is the Martian landscape because it allows for the runaway positive feedbacks to take hold. Whomever believes this world can sustain this degree of warming is either working for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank or is gathering this information from the laboratory at XXON/Mobile or its publicists!!??????

Meanwhile the group here is discussing who will give us better health care on a dying planet and impeachment of Bush a good way to avoid dealing with the truth. We can be suspect of anyone who says they have the truth. The need for understanding this current cast of characters wanting to be president is important. None of this group has the faintest idea of what we are really dealing with in terms of global warming numbers concerning the environment, and if they did they would not tell the public. They know it's bad and their advisers are telling them they can't deal with this issue to get elected by the masses.

The masses? Unless you have not heard, these are the people above who are worrying where their next bag of groceries comes from and the money to pay the rent! They really don't give a damn about the environmental issues. . And have no time for thinking about 10 to 20 years from today that has no realty attached to it for most Americans or the rest of the four and half billion people on this Earth in the same situation. . . .

Or, for the rest of the population working for and controlled by big business and big money. . .that is what this election is really about and if one thinks about the complexity of all these interrelated issues we know that we can not beat the odds business will win. That means the future for humanity is limited even for the one percent that has everything. Sure elect Edwards, Obama, or Kucinich or any combination of most of the Democrats that are not funded by big business for this election. This is the reality of this time we still live, on this, still beautiful planet.

As always, it is the Bush nightmare that suspends and forestalls human action forward. if there was a single problem for this world in the past eight years it has been this throwback from the Jurassic period that occupies the Black House steeped in the blood of untold millions in this world both present and future. How much I like the call to optimism, to human adventure and responsible action. I rings like the bell of the angels and like so many who write her I am happy for those who are secure in their optimism, more people at Bali should get your vibes and act responsibly. Having said that I have written here on the problem and tried often to get the powers to be accept we have a really serious problem. I work at the UN and UNESCO in Europe, I know that politics keeps action from happening.

I must say, I loathe the establishment because my concerned friends, it comes down to vested interests, greed and the economy as so many here writing understand. I am afraid that we have lost this little game of truth or consequences. But if the truth really be known, the power elite and the one percent who have everything and own everyone really don't care if some three billion people on this globe perish.

This is the reality of the circumstances of this situation of climate change and its results. The carbon producing industry want to burn every resulting carbon atom they can release, the atomic energy plants will continue mining uranium and its horrendous amounts a carbon produced to provide the fuel and the last tree in the Amazon will be cut as well as every other rain forest.

Why are there so many Republican/DLC supporters on these blogs? Nader2000, logrithmic, MFROAD etc.

MFROAD: Senator Dodd gets "things" (e.g. FISA amnesty) done like McCain fought against waterboarding. The FISA amnesty bill will be back just like the torture language was removed.

I'd rather have a politician tell me they are going to do the right thing and then fail or suceed at it than a politician tell me they are going to do the wrong thing and then succeed or fail at it.

Please go back to freerepublic.com or go to a good college that teaches you critical thinking skills.

BeForKids -

"And that's why Ralph Nader is willing to endorse Edwards for president."

This is the first I've heard of Nader's endorsement of Edwards, but it's apparently true. A Google search turned up this statement: "I do like Kucinich. But the frontrunners -- Edwards now has the most progressive message across a broad spectrum ... of any leading candidate I've seen in years."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Nader_likes_Kucinich_thinks_Edwards_looks_1218.html

I may have someone to vote for in November 2008 after all.

ike kay,

although it is good to digress, i hope your films are better than your writing. wouldn't it be nice to limit the posts here to the issue(s) at hand??????

While I was Googling for "Nader endorse Edwards" Huck posted the video link. Thanks Huck.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=77200&mesg_id=77200

The only thing that bothers me about Edwards is that he wants to give parents of disabled children the right to end their lives.I have celebral palsey and I think that is wrong.

How about Edwards/Obama??????

"Outside groups are in the process of pouring more than $3.2 million into Iowa to support Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

"A new group, run by John Edwards' former campaign manager, is spending nearly a million dollars of unregulated money to run a so-called "issue" ad in Iowa this week. The ad touts "the Edwards plan" and prominently features a smiling John Edwards -- but the group claims it isn't meant to promote one candidate or another.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's friends from Washington are spending millions on attacks, including a mailing that misleads voters by falsely disparaging Barack's universal health care plan. The mailing carefully uses a quote from another candidate and mimics the design of that candidate's mailings -- apparently with the hope that Iowans offended by the negativity will think it came from someone else.

The case has never been clearer -- this kind of politics needs to end. And you have the power to end it.

Instead of benefiting from $3.2 million from big interests over the next week, we're asking supporters like you to give whatever you can afford. That will put us past our goal of 500,000 people owning a piece of this campaign before the Iowa caucuses.

Be part of this historic movement by making a donation of $25. If you donate now, your impact will be doubled by matching a gift from a first time donor.

https://donate.barackobama.com/promise

With just one week to go before the caucuses, our opponents have revealed their commitment to politics-as-usual. Money is pouring in from outside groups to fund negative mailings, TV ads, phone calls, and attack websites.

Barack has repeatedly spoken out against the work of these outside groups, and this campaign does not accept any money from Washington lobbyists or PACs.

Instead, we put our faith in you. From the beginning, this campaign has been funded by a grassroots movement of ordinary people giving only what they can afford.

And your commitment to real change has gotten us pretty far.

The most recent polls show Barack ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire, and we're building an unparalleled operation in the 22 states with primaries and caucuses on February 5th.

Thanks to your past generosity, we are in a position to win this nomination. But we need to start strong in Iowa and keep the momentum building.

Make a donation of $25 today, and you can bring in a new donor by matching their gift:

https://donate.barackobama.com/promise

We've set a historic goal of 500,000 people owning a piece of this campaign by the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd. That's more people than have ever donated to a presidential campaign before voting started.

It's not an easy goal to achieve, but it will send a powerful message to the entrenched special interests.

Let them know that their outside money can't compete with a grassroots movement that's committed to a new kind of politics. And let them know that the days of big, unregulated Washington money are numbered.

The time for real change is now. Make a matched donation of $25 today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/promise

Jaded Prole and the rest of the Ron Paul haters,

Just because he's pro-life doesn't mean he's going to regulate abortion. He wants to limit and cut the federal government and federal intervention. I sincerly doubt he plans on using his position in the federal government to ban abortion. You're smearing him for something that doesn't matter. You add nothing to the dialouge.

And if I'm not mistaken, other than Kucinich, no one else has made a committment to reign in the empire. Ron Paul is right, we are going broke and most of it is from the military/intellegence-industrial complex.

Another thing we have to look when considering Paul is the things we dont like. You think with a democratic congress he will be able to eliminate social security, medicare, and several other of the programs progressives feel work? I don't think so. This is an advantage to having a balanced government. With Paul we definetly won't see an expansion of any public programs, but we also wouldn't see corporate subsidies or bail outs either.

This is why you should vote for the right senators and reps, but we should go with Ron Paul as president. Most of the people in the country are idiots and without a mainstream media presence Kucinich doesn't have a chance. But they seem to like Paul. We should stop hating the only real prinicpled political thinker that has a shot.

Join the revolution.

Yes, Edwards has an unattractive voting record. But he has admitted past mistakes, unlike Hillary, who never made a mistake! And he has spent the last four years working for the disadvantaged and talking about the increasing disparity in income. His health care plan is his biggest flaw to me, and Nader did say he hopes Edwards will live up to his words. Well, he's the only one besides Dennis speaking those words, which is costing him seriously in press attention, although not voter attention. So I credit him for courage, and am willing to give him a chance to prove his words. An Edwards/Kucinich ticket would be excellent, and could lead to a Kucinich presidency.

I must say, this has blown the cover of Nader2000 and MRFOAD. They really are corporate shills. Yawping about corporate money is really grasping at straws. Edwards isn't taking any, unlike Obama and Clinton.

Ron Paul wants to make some very important changes, which I support, but I do have a problem with ending Social Security, Medicare, and public education. I would hate to have to trust our present Congress to protect us from that, since they seem incapable of protecting us from anything. But realistically, they are probably far more likely to fight him tooth and nail over canceling NAFTA and the WTO. He would surely appoint Supreme Court judges that would put an end to Roe vs Wade. His views on states rights would create considerable suffering for the working poor in many states. Some states would probably do away with the minimum wage entirely. Personally I believe the federal government should set some sort of minimum standards for health and safety that states must meet, and he doesn't. I wouldn't mind his being president if we had a Congress we could count on to protect us, but I don't see one out there. Just a bunch of corporate whores. And a few marginalized progressives.
George, on the other hand, was carefully groomed by Rove as governor in Texas to appear moderate, even appointing moderate state Supreme Court judges. Look where that got us!

cpotts, that's the other thing I do like about Ron Paul, he is principled. He and Kucinich are both outstanding in that regard. I don't agree with all his principles, I just admire him for having them.

Just a word for the Nation - Gore Vidal came out as the spokesman for Kucinich. And did a really good job. I think John Nichols was the advocate for Edwards. I don't remember who came out for the other candidates, but they all had a rep. in the Nation.

I supported Edwards over Kerry in 2004. I didn't even know about Kucinich then. I am going to support Kucinich in the primaries this time around. I would sure be nice to know though if Kucinich doesn't get the nomination, that he would throw his votes to Edwards. That would make me feel better.

And for you Ron Paul suppporters, I don't agree with much of what he represents, but if I had to chose between Hillary and Ron, he would win hands down. But if those wind up being my choices, I'll probably vote Green. I'm not going to do the lesser of two evils thing with my vote.

What makes you think he will appoint a supreme court justice who will end Roe v. Wade? He is not in the evangelical pocket, so what makes you think he wouldn't just appoint who he feels is the best person for the position?

Edwards Reloaded is just as tired as Edwards who voted for the Iraq war and Most Favored Nation status for China.

"I think with Hong Kong, China, Singapore, many of the more successful neoliberal states in terms of economic growth, what you see is that this economic model thrives and is indeed most successful in the absence of democracy. I mean, China is the most successful economy in the world at the moment, there is no denying it. And it also has advanced in this way by skipping the democracy stage entirely. I mean, it's a laboratory for cutting-edge surveillance techniques at the moment, and is in fact pioneering the economy of surveillance. Not only in the city of Shenzhen do you have worker populations under cutting-edge surveillance using everything from networked CCTV cameras to GPS to biometric ID cards with a huge range of personal information embedded in them, but the selling of these technologies is one of the fastest growing businesses in China's economy. Which is really interesting when you think about the rhetoric of globalization in the 1990s, which said that the high-tech companies were going to go to China and democracy would soon follow. In fact the opposite has happened, trade hasn't brought democracy to China, and one of the fastest growing areas of trade is in repression and surveillance."- Naomi Klein

http://www.leftturn.org/?q=node/1001

Thanks for taking on all the corporations dying to get into China while you were in the Senate John.

Obama says it best: "The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result," Obama said, "And that's a risk we can't take."

Obama has spent 10 years in elected office working on what Edwards and the Clintons only talk about it: Transparency in government and single transferable voting.

usaspending.gov and SB 1789

cpotts, thank you for adding nothing to the dialogue. bottom line, he is a republican and he is pro-life. think. think. think.

Here's some information about Obama's fundraising. And the following link is to a story with more information and verification if you need convincing. Don't be fooled. And unlike Edwards, Obama hasn't repudiated his former voting record. If you recall, he came into the Senate talking like a populist, and then started voting like a corporate shill. Now we're getting the same pitch. Clearly becoming a Senator was just a stepping stone (and a quick one at that) to the presidency.

"Follow the money. Obama's presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007.

Obama's top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry."

Eight of Obama's top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates.

Meanwhile, Obama's presidential run has been "assisted" by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007".

http://edstrong.blog-city.com/obama_already_a_corporate_shill.htm

lino, Ron Paul isn't a rubber stamp Republican, he's a Libertarian.

And cpotts, he's strongly pro-life. But that's not why he would dismantle Roe vs Wade. He wants to leave the issue up to the states. He believes the federal government has no business making those kinds of decisions. He's a states rights proponent. He is consistent in his beliefs, like them or not.

Edwards still voted for the Iraq war and is well worn corporate hack when it comes to trade deals. He started running for president when? :) Give me a break. Obama has spent 10 years in ELECTED OFFICE fighting for government reforms like trasnparency, single transferable voting, and reducing the power of lobbyists- things Edwards blusters about but has never done.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

Surprise! Goldman Sachs is Edwards 5th biggest contributor. Get real.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/corruption/