Micheal Moore knows that EDWARDS is the man.
Check it out here on CD -
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/02/6108/

The only REAL PROGRESSIVE in the top tier of the Democratic Party candidates is - JOHN EDWARDS
Let's put Iowa in the bank for JOHN EDWARDS thursday and move on to New Hampshire!

Published on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 by the Chicago Sun Times
Kucinich Supports Obama for Second
by Lynn Sweet
AMES, Iowa — White House hopeful Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who is likely not to survive a first round of balloting in Thursday's Democratic Iowa caucus, today told his supporters to back Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as their second choice.

"I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: change," Kucinich said in a statement.

While Kucinich was barely pulling any backing according to all polls - thereby making it likely he would not make the 15 percent threshold vote needed to win delegates - his voters going for Obama in a second round could be critical for Obama coming out of Iowa ahead of rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) or former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.)

Kucinich spokesman Andy Juniewicz said the deal was finalized today and Obama called him at about 2 p.m. Central Time to thank him for his support. In making the second choice deal with Obama, Kucinich decided not to do a replay of 2004, where his followers were asked to support Edwards as their second choice, helping to provide Edwards with his margin for coming in second.

In a statement, Obama said, "I have a lot of respect for Congressman Kucinich, and I'm honored that he has done this because we both believe deeply in the need for fundamental change."

Who opposed the war and who supports IRV that would enable you to vote for Kucinich without feeling like you threw your vote away? OBAMA.

OBAMA IS THE REAL PROGRESSIVE.

"The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same players and expecting a different result. That's the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."-Barack Obama

www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006

http://fairvote.org/?page=1755

www.usaspending.gov and SB 1789 were authored by Barack Obama. Some people walk the walk, some people bluster.

Many of the posters here have good useful things to say. I prefer to post alternatives, rather than to attack another poster. Here's my quandary:

Who to vote for

I admit, I am conflicted about who to vote for. I have no doubts about the Republicans. They are all crap. Guiliani in particular is a liar, a faker and a thief. A very wealthy thief. (Aren't they all?)

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate with a strong record and plan. He voted against the war in Iraq from the beginning. He continues to oppose US participation in the war. On health care, he is the ONLY candidate to straightforwardly propose a universal, single-payer health plan for every citizen, without any form of private insurance playing a role in coverage.

Of the remaining candidates, the non-Republican front runners are, for me, the Clinton / Obama / Edwards trio. Forget Ron Paul (*).

Any one of these is the best bet outside of Kucinich, who apparently will not become our next president. (The main reason being that people are not well-informed about what's good for them and will not en masse write in Kucinich for president.)

So, here's my quandary.
1. Do I vote for Kucinich (write-in) anyway? To send a strong message to the media — the only ones who may carry the message.
or
2. Do I vote for one of the trio? They are the most likely to actually get elected and do actually stand for some sort of universal health care and for removing US troops from Iraq. I do like the Edwards talking points. So far, so good, except for allowing private insurers into his health care plan.

It's my call. I am as yet undecided.

(* Ron Paul loves private industry; his plan for health care: make everyone a slave to private insurers.)

I sure do agree with that Kathy. Pelosi has screwed us too, bigtime.

Kem you also make good points, but I remember when we did have Senators who stood up for doing the right thing - not many, but even a few. Now we have a Congress that considers winning elections more important than representing the American people and as a result, have lost the respect of the public. And I hope they pay the price.

Good points, MikeBinSC. I also hold the corporate media responsible for abandoning it's mandate to scrutinize the government and inform the public.

Kem, BeForKids, if Nader recognizes the authenticity of Edwards, others should be able to as well. As I have said before, Edwards has NEVER in his political career taken ANY campaign money from corporate lobbyists or PACs, and has spent most of his time fighting against them for the little people.

This is what David Michael Green says about the war vote in another article currently up here at CD -

"I am outraged as well at how the administration polarized the country in the wake of one of the greatest traumas it had ever experienced. Let us leave aside the ample evidence demonstrating that the Bush team was asleep at the wheel before 9/11 - or perhaps far, far worse - a set of facts which is noteworthy in part because progressives did not use them to attack the president and score cheap but easy political points. But the administration did precisely that. It is disgusting - and it fills me with anger - how they used a national security crisis to win partisan political contests. How they scheduled a vote on the Iraq war resolution right before the midterm elections of 2002, thus politicizing the gravest decision a country can make by forcing Democrats to choose between voting their conscience and campaign accusations of being soft on national security."

And this is what I said about the vote to authorize force in a much earlier post on this thread -

"Did the congress bend and yield to the will of the White House and to the will of the American sheeple, who were fed lie after lie after lie about Saddam and Iraq? Yes, they did, but not without good reason. It was not a vote to begin the invasion of Iraq, but rather an authorization for Bush to use force if necessary.

While I was one of those who opposed the invasion before it happened, I can see why many Democrats voted the way they did. John has been very open in admitting that his vote was a mistake, that he was wrong and that the war was wrong.

You have to remember that the vote was taken on the eve of the 2002 elections, when the Idiot-In-Chief was riding a wave of patriotic fervour and popularity following 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. If you remember, the Republicans were painting the Democrats as weak on defense, and the corporate MSM was backing their claims and pushing for war, and as a consequence, the Democrats lost control of the Senate after the 2002 elections.

While millions of us were protesting against the war, many millions more were screaming for it because of the lies spread like so much fertilizer by this administration and the corporate MSM. So, put the blame for the war where it truly belongs, and that would be at the feet of George W. Bush and his Neo-Fascist allies over at PNAC."

Lets put it another way. What would have happened if the accurate NIE report had been read to Congress and to us that year?

Instead of it reading, Saddam DID have WMDs, and HAD purchased uranium from Africa. And he HAD been behind 9-11. ___ That is what Tennant put into the report.___ Lies.

If the true report had been submitted as it should have been. Colin Powell would have read to the Senate and to us, on national television. ("Saddam has NO weapons of mass destruction,___ Hans Bliss IS correct. ___ Saddam did NOT purchse uranium from Africa or anyplace else. ___ Saddam had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9-11." __Had that happened, Bush would have been seen for what he is, and was, by everyone in the world. __ He could not allow it. He must have had something big on George Tennant.

Now if the truth had been told, and after hearing those truths, the Senate must vote for Bush to go to war, if he deemed it necessary as a last resort. Or, vote to deny him that option.

After all, Bush had been asking for that vote for almost a year and had been making his false claims and he had only two weeks prior held a press conference and told us, that Saddam had been buying uranium from Africa.

The Senate "had refused" to vote on the issue UNTIL the NIE report was published. If they had been told the truth and the entire thing was public, they sure would have been in big, big trouble, if they had voted to authorize a war. Most of the Americans did not want a war with Iraq, except for those born again Christians, big business and idiots.

Yes, I will certainly agree that many had serious doubts about what Cheney and Bush had been proclaiming, myself included, but that FALSE NIE report sure did help him. We don't know what any Senators knew or desired. We do know they would not vote on the issue, until the NIE report was prepared. That was my point and that point is history and the facts.

If any wish to argue about other things, fine, no one can't sensibly argue with what actually occurred. Now I realize some people have a problem with reading comp and some are just ignorant. Most who come here are probably a lot smarter than I am, but we mostly all possess common sense. __ Not you DOUGWAGNER.

That may be so, Be For Kids. It may not be so too. Just becaus you thught so, doesn't mean all of the Senators were fully aware. Whatever they knew, does not detract from the facts that I posted. All I was and am saying is, Bush insured the NIE report was altered. If he knew the Senators were all going to vote for the war,,,,,,,,,,,,, (why would he have even bothered to commit that crimnal act?)

I also do not apprecite anyone telling me I am full of it, for posting what occurred. This guy has been on my case several times now, you know how that goes.

Kem, if I knew Bush was lying - and I did - then I think the Senators also knew he was lying but used his lies for cover to vote for the invasion for their own purposes. He's not the only one who wants their oil, and they have a constituency - not us - who benefit from the occupation.

In addition, the no fly zone had been in effect since the First Gulf war. That and what is occurring now has nothing to do with the Senate Vote in 2001. If one listens to your opinions, then it would not have mattered if the Senate voted or not. The way you tell it, the war began when Bush took office.

Once again, I posted about the faulty intelligence repor, that is a very serious issue and is seldom addressed. The NIE report was a lie and Bush knew it was a lie, he insured it was. If that Senate vote wasn't extremely important to him, why did he commit a most serious and impechable crime, to insure he got the vote he desired?

I'm not posting this for you DOUGWAGNER. I'm posting it for any others who may have read your bull.

DOUGWAGNER What is wrong with you? Everyone knew Bush wanted to have a war with Iraq before he was elected. That was not the issue here, this was an article about John Edwards and several wrote they would not vote for him becase he voted to authorize the Second Gulf War.

I therefore posted what happened in September and October of 2001 and that the Senate voted __ AFTER __ they had been given a FALSE NIE report. Because I posted that history and facts, you state I'm full of it.

Bush claimed to the entire world, that he was attacking Iraq, because of 9-11 and Saddam had WMDs and had purchased uranium from Africa. Bush knew full well that was not true. The Senate did NOT know what the true NIE report said. ___ That was my point.

I was not incorrect and I am not ashamed of anything nor should I be. It makes no difference what reason Bush wanted to go to war, the Senate was purposely mislead with faulty intelligence ___ why do you argue that fact? Are you attempting to make me look stupid? __ Yes, indeed you are, and in doing so, you show what you are. A troll like individual, who is attempting to create unwarrented and unnecessary friction on this very good CD site.

I also NEVER said Hans Bliss had anythng to do with Bush going to war. Hans Bliss was doing a great job and Bush pulled him out of there __ AFTER __ the Senate voted. You obviously have a reading comprehensin problem also, which is far worse than bad spelling.

No excuse for my sometimes poor spelling, but a reason. I have a serious vision problem and have to use a magnifing glass to read the print while I'm trying to correct errors, the image magnify feature does not work on the typing portion of this screen. Then sometimes the edit time runs out on me. But your crititism of my spelling is just a petty way of your attempts to discredit me personally. You have done this previously with me.

What you are posting has nothng to do with what happened in that White House meeting with Bush , Cheney, Rumsfeld and Tennant in September of 2001. What happened was a criminal offense and it helped to start an unjust war, for whatever reason, for oil control or for Jesus. We know it wa not for WMDs, but the vast majority of the public, including the Senate did not know that in 2001 or 2. If you were so well informed why didn't you report the real reasons to the world in 2001? Don't bother replying because who do you believe wishes to hear your nonsense, other than perhaps some with your bent to create trouble here. There are several of your type here now and many are aware of you. We aren't little kids, or stupid.

* "The White House said missile attacks against Iraqi military command and control centers south of Baghdad on Friday did not "represent an escalation in attacks against Iraq or a change in policy."

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/iraq.airstrike.03/index.html

And obviously they did represent an escalation of attacks against Iraq and a change in policy!

The fact is that this was a WAR FOR OIL. Everybody knows that with two cents of common sense in their tank. And everybody knows that that vote was a vote on a WAR FOR OIL. You should be ashamed to say that Hans Blix or weapon inspectors had anything to do with it. That was Bush's position then, and it is Bush's position now.

MikeBinSC, hoping to overcome the Republican theft of 2008 won't cut it. Their Justice Dept is already hard at work purging voter rolls, and states are passing draconian registration laws while the Democrats are only now starting to "look into it". What's with these Democrats anyway? It seems that all that's left on our side is remnants of the Judiciary.

I would vote for Ron Paul before Hillary, at least he wants to get out of Iraq, cancel NAFTA and reverse the PATRIOT and Military Commission Acts. Right now I'm just waiting to see where things are going. I will not vote for Hillary or Obama. I'm supporting Kucinich, and keeping an eye on Edwards. He's a definite possibility for my vote. In my mind, Edwards got a big boost from Ralph Nader saying he wouldn't run if Edwards gets the nomination.

Kem,

(1) You are still full of it.

(2) The no fly-zones were never about WMDs and this war was never about WMDs, it was about oil. That is obvious to everyone, as cited above, even Alan Greenspan, and apparently, if you read through his cynicism, Paul Wolfowitz, also cited above.

Quoting You: "For staters, Bush took office in 2001. The Second Gulf War, or Operation Freedom, began on March 20, 2003. ___ That was more than two years after Bush took office."

Take another pill of whatever drug you're on. What's insulting about your justification of Edwards and Clinton's vote for the Iraq War is still insulting to Americans like me who were put under surveillance for opposing the war in 2002. If you follow the link to what I posted [which I doubt considering your spelling], you'll notice paragraph 4:

"Last week's US and British airstrikes outside of Baghdad have come under severe scrutiny from countries once considered part of the US' Gulf War coalition."

Airstrikes aren't attacks Kem? Then what are they? I didn't say Bush began the war in 2001 I said he attacked Iraq virtually his first week in office, WHICH IS TRUE.

Here's another quote you can follow to the link below it:

"It marks the first time since Operation Desert Fox in 1998 that the allies have struck targets outside the no-fly zone, in this case north of the 33rd parallel. The no-fly zones are bands running across Iraq that are bordered by the 33rd parallel in the south and 36th parallel in the north."

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/iraq.airstrike.03/index.html

Is that what you want us to believe Kem? Well, excuse me. I wasn't fooled then and I sure as hell am not fooled 7 years later. Your man Edwards' vote continues to kill millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans.

Either Elizabeth, Kucinich or Edwards, would make a great First Lady if we can get one of them there. Niether of them suffers from an America-centric view. Michell Obama would be good as well. Ever since Obama gave the keynote speech at the Democratic convention in 2004, blacked out by most of the MSM, he has been something of a phenomenon among younger voters. His message of unity strikes a chord with younger people who are much less prejudiced against blacks, other people of color, or other minorities such as the LGBT community. And yes, we do still have huge problems with the voting machines/systems and voter caging, that I hope we can overcome.

I just hope I don't have to choose between Hillary and Ron Paul. In fact, I hope I don't have to choose between Hillary and anybody.

You are correct Mike, I buy that. I also agree that we should get together and pick the one person who is ONE of the best choices, but insure we vote for the one who can WIN the general election also, even if some states votes are compromised and stolen for the Republican candidate. That will likely occur once again. Of course both parties will now likely be working on that option. I personally believe Edwards fits that criteria of the best choice, far better than any other.

That was a great movie eh, He'd be a great president too, with a fine looking and very intelligent wife to boot. ___ She would be a great president.

I mentioned earlier that I could foresee a scenario where I would vote for Hillary. If the choice on the ballot is Hillary or Hitler, I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary, not write in Edwards, Kucinich or Mickey Mouse.

That was a great movie, one of Newmans best. Kem, I don't mind having my ideas challenged, and everyone has a right to believe and vote however they want. But, if your going to attack my ideas and reasoning, show me the reason and logic behind your own. Huck hasn't done that, and I don't think that my comments are any more or any less emotional.

Ya know what? I think you are both correct. You're just on different pages.

Remember Cool Hand Lukes last words? "What we have here, is a failure to communicate."

It's not emotion Huck, you seem to have a problem with reason and logic.

Mike, thank you for taking refuge in emotions and demonstrating that they rule, not the least of which was followed by you latest hissy fit. Carry on...

Kem, i am not sure which question you are referring to?

Huck, if you follow your "Conscience Voting Philosophy" to its logical conclusion, if Kucinich doesn't get the Democratic nomination, you should not vote for anyone, as that would compromise your precious conscience!

Huck, as usual, more verbiage from you with no answer. You did at least say that Kucinich was your choice, and as you should know by now, I have no problem with that. I told you before that I would love to see Dennis in the White House, as he IS even more progressive than Edwards.

What you have failed to do, is to explain how Kucinich would solve the problems in any way other than incrementally, working with congress to pass legislation, one step at a time. You have already indicated in previous comments, please, don't make me quote you again, that the problems can't be solved, that it is already too late.

Huck, you're acting like the spoiled little brat who wants his ice cream with sprinkles, chocolate chips, whipped cream and a cherry on top, and if he can't get it all, he would rather throw a tantrum, throw the ice cream on the floor, stomp on it and trash the kitchen.

GROW UP HUCK!

I don't have handlers in the Edwards campaign but I am supporting him and other progressive candidates. I never said that I would vote for Clinton if she was the Democratic choice in 2008, but I can see a scenario where I might give her my vote, depending on who the opposition candidates are.

Huck, the bottom line is, when the electorate is awake enough to rally behind an ultra-progessive candidate, I'll be right there with them. Until then, I will work FOR the MOST progressive change I can get, and AGAINST further regression. And Huck, THE ELECTORATE IS NOT AWAKE YET, even though YOU say it is! As I said before, if they WERE awake, we would not be having this conversation.

By fewer baggage, I mean Edwards has more exerience, due to the fact he's a bit older and has the experience of running for the prez positon previously, and he's not a Muslem, unfortunantly that is a big issue with a whole lot of "Christian" voters. Obama or Hillary against the bible thumper Huckabee would be a tough fight, Edwards can easily defeat a Huckabee.

Oh Huck, actually you never did answer Mike's question.

Kem, I think Obama has tapped into something ignored or rejected by the boomers like me, and i assume you and many others here, too. He speaks to young people who are flocking to his campiagn: he excites them. I believe that by ignoring his message to that population we are limiting ourselves to our own peril. Young people are fed up with the cultural wars.

My objection with the tone here and elsewhere is this 'one size fits all' sensibility. I am just as concerned as anyone about where this country is and where it has been diminished by the neo-cons. Do I think Edwards is better than all of that: you bet. That is not to say that he differs significantly with them. I dont think that he does. Anyone who thinks Edwards or any of the front runners will reign in big money is not being honest with themselves. I dont play that game. It is that simple.

You are welcome HUCK. Ya know Huck, I believe Mike is like many of us who have the same opinion of Kunichi, love him, but the reality is he will not win unless a miracle occurs. Therefore, Mike is a bit frustrated, as are a lot of us, for those who have any chance at all are Obama, Edwards, and Hillary and we don't want Hillary. So if all of the die hard Kucinich suporters would vote for Edwards, when that time comes, he could win the primary and be our next president. If Hillary or Obama win the primary we could easily have Huckabee for our next president. I am not against Obama but ifhe did win the primary the neo-con press would have a field day with him. They would with Edwards also, but he has fewer baggage to argue about.

Talking politics is sort of like talking religion, it alway brings out the best in everyone, the 'fighting' spirit. For example, there I was defending Edwards voting for the war and why he was misled. Everyone knew Bush wanted to have a war in Iraq as soon as he was elected and that's what DOUGWAGER is arguing. That's not the point in this discussion. The point is, many people won't vote for Edwards because of his vote and I wished to point out that he and 76 other Senators ware horribly decieved by Bush before they voted. So was Colin Powell decieved, he had warned Bush several times to not invade Iraq. Bush set him up also and got rid of him.

Ken, thanks for setting me straight.

Actually Mike, you and your friends here are the 'true believers' when it comes to the Edwards campaign. Read your last assertion on the subject.

If you go back and read what i actually said rather than your spin of what i said, my assertion was that one candidate offered a true progressive agenda - not only by his current plan, but by his PAST actions as a legislator: and Kucinich is that man. I intend to vote for him.

Now read this very carefully Mike rather than impose your Alice in Wonderland sensibility on it. Unlike you and the rest of the sheeple, i have no intention of followinng the rest of the HERD and ACCEPT whatever status quo candidate the Cave Party decides is BEST FOR ME. Is that clear enough for you Mike? Is this something you can understand without your handlers in the Edwards campaign telling you what you ought to think?

I've already noted that you are free to vote any way you choose to and i respect that, and affirm your right to do so. Conversely, your dysfuntional mind set is unable to acknowledge my right without attaching some base insult.

What do you think i owe you Mike? You probably don't realize this, but your fear and existential angst is driving your life. Like the religious fundamentalists of the world, everyone has to think like you, act like you, vote like you, and hold the same ideology as you.

Dont you think it is time to GROW UP?

DOUGWAGNER, ___ are you sober yet?

First you say that "I'm so full of it", and then you state that Bush started the war in Iraq, his FIRST WEEK in office. Then you offer a link that talks about Colin Powell visiting Kuwait in 2001. I have seen you post some funny things, but that post is really funny. __ Very strange also.

For staters, Bush took office in 2001. The Second Gulf War, or Operation Freedom, began on March 20, 2003. ___ That was more than two years after Bush took office. I do believe you are incorrect by a bit more than a few weeks there. Bush did not go to war, until after the Senate had voted to fund it and authorized him to use war (only as a last resort).
He could not have gone to war, without their vote of consent. So why am I full of it?

I never said they didn't give him the votes, I have posted that they were lied to about the reason he gave for starting the war. Right from the start, Bush said the reason he was starting the war, was because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and had purchase uranium from Africa. He has since changed his reasons a few times.

In Sept of 2001, George Tenant briefed Bush with a top secret CIA document that stated that Saddam had gotten rid of all of his WMDs in 1991, immediatlely after the First Gulf War, he also had not ever purchsed uranium from Africa or anyone else.

Bush angirly told Tenant to bury that report and to alter the NIE report, which was to be read to Congress in October. Tenant buried the true report and Colin Powell, who was totally unaware of the true report, read the false report to Congress. Those are facts and that account of history is what I posted. So again, DOUGWAGNER, why am I full of it? Please clarify your very funny statement ___if you can.

I also said Has Bliss was still conducting inspections in Iraq when the Senate voted. That too is a FACT DOUGWAGNER, and the I offered my personal opinion then and stated it was just my opinion, that I beleive the Senate believed, Bliss would be allowed to continue his inspections. They did not vote to have him tossed out of Iraq. If you wish to disagree with that opoinion that's fine, __ we all have opinons. Say so and offer why you believe otherwise.

I won't say you are full of it for that. I will say you are very misinformed on when the war began and when the Senate voted and have ignored the FACTS of what they were aware of when they voted. That fact sir, is clearly obvious.

All I have ever said about this (and primarily why John Edwards was mislead before he voted, as it is him this article is about,) was what occured before the Senate voted on the issue and why the lies may certainly have effected their vote. Several have publically stated, that if they had known the TRUE NIE report, they would not have voted to give Bush the authority to start the war.

So If you wish to state those Senators are full of it, knock yourself out. Evidently, it was a good thing I did post what I did, for it may be slightly possible some others here may be as uniformed as you obviously are on the issue.

HUCK __ I thnk I'll reply to you there too, for I believe you are confussed about which "NIE" (National Intelligence Report) I was talking about. Huck, I was taking about the one for the year 2001 in my first posts, not this latest report which just came out. The report I was referring to had nothng to do with waterboarding, Pelosi nowing etc.

DOUGWAGNER, ths is the second time injust this week you have sort of insulted me; __ how come, Have I ever offended you? If I have I apologize, I'ms orry. If I haven't then please tell me what it is that you feel it necessary to post that I'm so full of it?
I often am, but I didn't know you were that familiar with my ass. Of course with that code name, you may be someone I know who has kissed it, if not, __ your very welcome. I'll even rent the community hall and have some kegs of suds and invite the whole town to come see it. ___ Hope you are as cute as you write.

Let's face it. The corporate media leaves no stone unturned when exploring the history of Democratic presidential candidates, or even repeating lies about them, like the swiftboating of Kerry. But they left huge holes in the resume of George W Bush; allowing him to lie about his accomplishments as governor of Texas, ignoring his trashing one business after another and being continually bailed out by no other than the bin Laden family, friends of his father. It was Gonzales who got him out of jury duty to cover up his drunken driving charge so he could run on a "clean" record, and the media ignored his intriguing statement that he "hadn't used cocaine in the last 7 years". They never looked into why he spent a year of community service with Project P.U.L.L. which was completely out of character since he was partying and drinking hard in those years, and has committed no act of charity before or after that time.

Once they choose a candidate, they become extremely selective about what is fit to print. And if they don't like a candidate, every rumor is worth repeating. That's our fourth estate, hard at work preserving democracy.

I couldn't agree with you more sjc_1, but John needs our help to get in, and if he does get in, he will need our help to push congress to act on his legislative agenda.

I support Edwards for President. He can help get this country back on track and he will bring the right people to the White House with him to give good advice that will benefit us all.

A lot of words there Huck, but you did what all good polititians do, you completely avoided answering the simple question.

If not Edwards, who is the person you speak of, and how will they solve the problems? Who do you want to send a message to? Who do you believe (in)?

Incremental change means participating in good faith with the other countries of the world in trying establish a course of action to confront global warming, not derailing the process. Those decisions could be implemented and we would begin to make incremental progress toward a solution.

Huck, the sheeple, when they are wide awake, will send a message by removing those of both parties who stand in the way of solutions, but sadly, most aren't even aware of the problems or their magnitude. THEY ARE NOT AWAKE!

One more chance Huck, who would YOU have save us, and how?

I see two different types of political ideologies here: those that are trying to predict the future and those that are trying to create the future.

Yes, Edwards is probably the best of the top tier candidates, although that's not saying a whole lot, but voting for him is voting to predict the future, to be part of a winning team.

Kucinich is clearly the candidate with both the most progressive ideas of all the candidates and is also the one with the most consistently honest and progressive voting record, so voting for Kucinich is voting to create the future, to be part of a revitalized country.

I find it sad when people actually gloat that Kucinich cannot win and that his supporters are pie-in-the-sky dreamers, when they're really just trying to deal with the reality of the fact that the US government needs a complete overhauling, instead of some minor tinkering.

Ah, but a man's reach must exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?

--- Browning

My comments were directed at your prescriptions Mike, not my own. Clever turn of phrase, but like everything else you have offered on this forum, it is out of context. No where did i say that independents will provide the change of an order of magnitude necessary, that only represents your distorted interpretation of what i said.

Obviously i don't bring to the dance the level of knowledge, certainty, dysfuntional hope, and elitist wisdom of someone such as yourself or Nichols.

While i do not know much, one of my reservations is epistimological: how do you know what you know? How do you know that incremental change is enough to reverse climate change or the disappearing polar ice caps? How do you know Edwards is the Choosen One given his past record working to overturn sustainable energy, protect the auto industry, and environmental organizations noting that his environmental record in the Senate was a failure? Why should i believe him now? As i noted prevously, jump on his band wagon: as a freeman, i support your freedom to do whatever you must. Even if that freedom includes more of the same.

Futhermore, my prescriptions are simple: walk the talk. i do, i doubt many on this site embody what they pay lip service to everyday. But one thing i know for sure having worked in the field of depth psychology all my life, if you reward people who never deliever you will only keep getting more of the same. Conversely, if you send them a message and start putting in non aligned people beholding to no organizational structure, then - and only then - will you begin to get results that might really make a difference.

In closing, you can have the last word my freind, make it a good one.

Huck, we know your not ready to fire the first shots in the real revolution, so what is your vision for saving the world? Who's going to save you, and how?

Huck, you said - "Obviously Edward's has become that elusive beacon of dysfunctional hope always promised never materialized. My guess is that in the next ten years people like Mike will be born again independends having finally recognized his misplaced fidelity to the status quo."

Huck, we don't have ten years, you should know that as you have already said, "we have lost the war...we don't have the time to solve climate change incrementally or otherwise". Huck, we don't have time (10 years) to build an independent party!

Huck, quit flogging the dead horse and share with the rest of us your plan for non-incremental, instant change to save the world, short of real revolution.

Here is the letter written to President Bill Clinton in January of 1998 by the Neo-Fascists at PNAC. Note the list of names who signed it at the bottom, as it includes the last two heads of the World Bank, all the Reagan criminals, our ambassador pushed in the back door of the UN, and a host of others in the MSM. These were the architects of the war. This is the same group that said, that short of a New Pearl Harbor event, it would take a very long time to build up the military required for world domination.

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Kem, while I agree with your points it simply falls short. Reports on this forum have now shown all the top Dems including Pelosi and Reid were briefed on the US use of waterboarding (track the article if you are interested) and not only did they know about it they happen to be just as culpable by their silence on the subject. If they were briefed on torture surely they knew the truth on Iraq coupled with the fact they continue to fund the war despite their broken promises. When are you people going to wake up? Are you all waiting for some futrue utopia the type of which Mike longs for? Obviously Edward's has become that elusive beacon of dysfunctional hope always promised never materialized. My guess is that in the next ten years people like Mike will be born again independends having finally recognized his misplaced fidelity to the status quo.

Barack Obama will probably make a good vice president for John Edwards, and then maybe president.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Pearl, Richard Armatage, George Tennet, Colin Powell and all the rest of the Neo-Fascists over at PNAC (Project for the New American Century) own this illegal war and ocupation of Iraq, period.

Did the congress bend and yield to the will of the White House and to the will of the American sheeple, who were fed lie after lie after lie about Saddam and Iraq? Yes, they did, but not without good reason. It was not a vote to begin the invasion of Iraq, but rather an authorization for Bush to use force if necessary.

While I was one of those who opposed the invasion before it happened, I can see why many Democrats voted the way they did. John has been very open in admitting that his vote was a mistake, that he was wrong and that the war was wrong.

You have to remember that the vote was taken on the eve of the 2002 elections, when the Idiot-In-Chief was riding a wave of patriotic fervour and popularity following 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. If you remember, the Republicans were painting the Democrats as weak on defense, and the corporate MSM was backing their claims and pushing for war, and as a consequence, the Democrats lot control of the Senate after the 2002 elections.

While millions of us were protesting against the war, many millions more were screaming for it because of the lies spread like so much fertilizer by this administration and the corporate MSM. So, put the blame for the war where it truly belongs, and that would be at the feet of George W. Bush and his Neo-Fascist allies over at PNAC.

you're so full of it.

(1) Bush attacked Iraq virtually his first week in office Kem. Get real.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/20/us.iraq/

Why should we invade Iraq if they had WMDs? Did they attack us on 9/11? Did they harbor the Taliban? Did they harbor Al-Qaeda? Get real. The Senate and the House should have never passed this resolution. War against Iraq should have never been authorized. The fact that you rely on WMDs to justify Edward's vote is pathetic. As Paul Wolfowitz said,
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm
Even Alan Greenspan, in his latest book, notes that it's obvious this was a war for oil. Come on.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

(2) Quoting you "Remember too, Bush had not proven to be a total nutcase at that time either. He had a fair degree of creibility with the majority of the American public and the Senate, which was mostly Republican then. And after all, he was the President, "upholding" our Constitution."
Remember 50 Democrats + Jeffords were in the Senate and 77 Senators voted for the war.

NEVER FORGET WHO VOTED FOR THE WAR!

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

YEAs —77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

(3) I repeat. Millions of Americans were opposed to this war in 2002 and as one of them, I know for a fact the surveillance methods used, and it is shameful for you to suggest that if everybody in the Senate looked at the intelligence they would have been misled. In fact, the only senator on the intelligence committee, Bob Graham D-Florida, who did look at the administration's case, changed his vote after reviewing the intelligence information. AND BTW RSJ PAUL WELLSTONE DID NOT HAVE A SAFE SEAT. YOU MAY RECALL HE LOST HIS LIFE.

'What I knew before the invasion' by Senator Bob Graham D-Florida

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

(4) "But it doesn't end there. Because the American people weren't just failed by a President - they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts. By a foreign policy elite that largely boarded the bandwagon for war. And most of all by the majority of a Congress - a coequal branch of government - that voted to give the President the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day. Let's be clear: without that vote, there would be no war.

Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?" - Barack Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

One final thought, and it's my personal opinion. I don't believe many thought at that time, that Bush would actually go to war, until after Hans Bliss had finished his inspections and had possibly declared that Saddam was hiding WMDs.

So the Senate may have also voted with that assumption, add then the falseified NIE report and the vow from Bush, that he would not go to war unless there was no other option. Remember too, Bush had not proven to be a total nutcase at that time either. He had a fair degree of creibility with the majority of the American public and the Senate, which was mostly Republican then. And after all, he was the President, "upholding" our Constitution.

Yes indeed they tried to do it all over again didn't they MIKE. They did manage to bury that latest NIE report for 18 months, so Bush could be better prepared to attack Iran.

That was a good post RSJ, I agree, except for a couple of things. When the Senate voted, Hans Bliss was still doing his job in Iraq and there was little reason for the Senate to believe he wouldn't be allowed to complete it. They also were assured, that war was the LAST resort before they voted. That vote by Kerry, also helped Bush big time when the next electionn came up.

Add in the faulty intelligence report to those two very important ingredients and Bush won. He screwed the Senate and Colin Powell at the same time. Then he screwed us and the Iraqis. We're gonna pay for Bush's ignorance and sheer insanity, pay big time.

The vote was: "One small step for Bush. ___ One giant leap for disaster."

Kem is right, just as in the case with the torture briefings, only the gang of four had the true NIE.

Hey DOUGWAGNER, those were not my opinions about the pre war intelligence. Those words came from John Kerry, Clinton, John Edwards, Keith Olbvermam and Tenant to name just a very few.

So why should you state I shoud be SHAMED for havng my opinions, based upon what did happen. Bush had the CIA report that Saddam did NOT have any WMDs and had NOT purchasd uranium from Africa, as he had already told the senate that Saddam had indeed done just that. Do YOU deny Bush and Cheney had Tenant bury that true report?

Bush knew it was a lie, the senate did not, neither did billions of us. If you were one of the millions in the know, why didn't you tell the Senate before they voted? I posted what is history and fact, not my opinions. Several of the Senators have publically stated, that if they had the correct intelligence report, they would not have voted to authorize a war with Iraq. If they're lying, call them liars or not having the facts straight, __ not me. __ Thank you Sir.

Huck, I'm not trying to convince you of anything either, as it is obvious that you have already made your decision to give up and choose martyrdom of conscience, and I'm ok with that, as your free will choice, if you are. What I write on these pages is to help others see the future, and their choices in forming it more clearly, and to help them crawl out from under the heavy blanket of ignorant psycho-babble bullshit that has been laid over them.

Unlike you Mike, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I respect your right to vote any way you choose to. Obviously, the true believers among us - and they include Nichols, yourself, people like Hartmann, and Rhodes, et al, are nothing more than empty suits blowing a stagnent wind for people unable to think for themselves. I assume that is why they censor out any disenting voice not marching their texas two step...

The hilarious part about this debate is that Edwards is going to lose. Then so 'so called' change agents like yourself will jump in bed with Clinton or Obama and blowing your ill wind on their behalf.

Huck, anyone following your logic, should just assume a fetal position with their head between their legs, and kiss their butt goodbye!

Huck, the fact of the matter is, JOHN EDWARDS is probably the worlds last best hope to start turning thing around before it IS too late.

Huck, YOUR comments indicate clearly that YOU have already given up -

"…the only problem is that no one told you and Nichols we have lost the war…"

and

"we don't have the time to solve climate change incrementally or otherwise."

There is no public transportation where I live, because I saved my money, quit my job, bought a small house and some land in a rural area, where I can grow food and participate in a sustainable economy. I raise chickens, for the eggs, and allow them to free range on the property in the day, and put them up at night. I am working out barter arrangements with other local farmers.

While I have not yet become a vegen, I do not eat meat with every meal, and much of the meat we do eat comes from wild game. Those who live in the cities will have a very rude awakening when the crash comes, as nearly all the food eaten there travels an average of 1500 miles to get there.

And as I told you before, it doesn't matter who you elect, change will still be incremental. Even if it were possible to elect Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader or Al Gore, they would still have to work with congress to get incremental change. There is no magic bullet short of real revolution, and that will not happen before it is too late, because too many are still asleep, listening to the treasonous, soothing lullaby supplied by corporate mainstream media, the Republican Crime Family, and some complicit Democrats.

But, YOU Huck, have already given up, and your words echo your inner feelings -
"…the only problem is that no one told you and Nichols we have lost the war…"

and

"we don't have the time to solve climate change incrementally or otherwise."

Well Huck, there IS a solution, it IS incremental, and it starts by putting a very progressive, very electable, JOHN EDWARDS in the White House in 2008.

What's all this about candidates being pro- or anti-abortion? The answer is not to get pregnant.

I see most of the men here are in favor of abortion. I'm wondering if this could have anything to do with one of those special interests we all talk about--power, money, freedom to do as we please?

"The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same players and expecting a different result. That's the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."-Barack Obama

www.barackobama.com/issues/corruption/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006

http://fairvote.org/?page=1755

www.usaspending.gov and SB 1789 were authored by Barack Obama. Some people walk the walk, some people bluster.

Kem,

you have no points that are valid about the pre-war intelligence. Millions of Americans were opposed to this war in 2002 and as one of them, I know for a fact the surveillance methods used, and it is shameful for you to suggest that if everybody in the Senate looked at the intelligence they would have been misled. In fact, the only senator on the intelligence committee, Bob Graham D-Florida, who did look at the administration's case, changed his vote after reviewing the intelligence information. AND BTW RSJ PAUL WELLSTONE DID NOT HAVE A SAFE SEAT. YOU MAY RECALL HE LOST HIS LIFE.

Millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans continue to die in Iraq because John Edwards and Hillary Clinton voted for the war. A war Barack Obama opposed October 2, 2002, and that Dennis Kucinich voted against.

And it is shameful for people to say Barack Obama uses Republican talking points. NAME ONE. He has been working on the reforms that Hillary and Edwards only bluster about for over 10 YEARS IN ELECTED OFFICE.

VOTE OBAMA. CHANGE AMERICA. CHANGE THE WORLD.

NEVER FORGET WHO VOTED FOR THE WAR!

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

YEAs —77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

It is called 'DENIAL' Mike, and you and Nichols and the rest of the sheeple got a very very bad case of it.

And speaking of a wake up call, I have not owned a car in over twenty years: i use public transportation, i don't purchase my cloths from manufacturers using sweat shop labor, i don't own stock in corporations, you know all those baddies you and Nichols and Edwards are working to crush while at the same time feeding from their hands, i recycle 100% percent of my waste, i don't eat meat (perhaps you missed it but the single largest cause of the loss of the rain forest world wide is to provide for cattle grazing to supply fast food to people like you and Edwards and Nichols: in fact Edwards brags about his love affair with Wendy's. The only thing more sad than revolutionaries like you and Edwards and Nichols are the people who believe their garbage.

And if you ever pull your head out of the sand and listen to the predictions on climate change people who track the numbers are presenting more dire predictions than anyone previously noted even up to two years ago.

But feel free to ignore by embracing the illussion that Edwards is the new saviour of the world. The system you love is corrupt beyond your wildest hopes.

I would like to see Kucinich get the nomination but, let's face it, ever since Russert's 'UFO' debate question -- a 'gotcha' of the worst kind designed to make him look like a either a space cadet or a liar, depending on how he answered it -- the MSM have been paying NO attention to Dennis, even though he's ahead of Biden and Dodd in some Iowa polls. Let's not forget, though, that Dennis has participated to some degree in his downfall -- singing "16 Tons" during a speech and some of his other public 'exuberances' make him come off as something of a flake. (I know he was just trying to be funny, but many didn't get it. Like Dean, he has to remember the viewing audience outside the room and that the MSM are laying in wait to exploit any mistake.)

Edwards has his flaws, he's human -- if you can point me to a flawless candidate, I'll gladly vote for him or her. In the meantime, he's the only progressive Dem who has a chance of winning the nomination and would beat any GOP contender handily in 2008, according to all the recent polls. I don't think he'd pick Kucinich for VP for the reasons stated above; more likely he'd go with someone safe like Dodd, although Obama has an outside chance. Edwards/Dodd or Edwards/Obama is a winning ticket in 2008, and vastly better than anything the GOP is offering. (Ron Paul will be the Republican candidate when there are snowball fights in hell.)

Edwards has fought against big corporations as a lawyer, and he does know what it's like to be poor, much more so than either Hillary or Barack. He also urged Kerry to fight in 2004 and challenge the Ohio vote, but Kerry turned him down. Since then, he has spent much of his time working on projects to help the indigent.

With Hillary, we already know she's getting vast amounts of money from Wall Street and Big Corpo, especially the HMO and pharmaceutical industries, and even Rupert Murdoch, and they don't hand out that cash because they believe in good government -- they expect something in return; I don't know what's happened to Obama -- he's a good man but he has been spouting right-wing talking points on occasion and overly stressing compromise with the same elements that put us into this mess -- perhaps he's 'moving to the middle' to make himself more electable, but that is not what's needed this year. That leaves Edwards as the viable progressive in this election.

BTW, Kem, I agree with you on the Iraq resolution Senate vote, but I'd add that there were some experts, like Scott Ritter, who questioned the existence of Saddam's WMD and UN inspector Hans Blix was begging for the chance to complete his inspections until Junior cut him off and told his team to leave the country. I saw Colin Powell's UN presentation and it was full of gaping holes -- I recall yelling "bullshit!" at the TV when he showed his 'artist's renderings' of bio-chemical weapons trailers and held up that vial of 'anthrax.' It was all bad theater. I'm sure people as smart as Hillary knew it as well. Unfortunately, I can only conclude the Dems who voted for the Iraq resolution did so for purely political reasons -- they didn't want to be accused in the next election of being 'soft' on terrorism. Those Dems who voted against it, you might notice, were in safe seats.

Aw heck Huck, now you went and did it, look at your statements -

"…the only problem is that no one told you and Nichols we have lost the war…"

and

"we don't have the time to solve climate change incrementally or otherwise."

YOU have already admitted defeat! I on the other hand, have spent the last decade, while others slept, preparing for this inevitable fight.

You can't wave your magic wand, even with Ron Paul stuck on the end of it, and solve the problems. Incremental progress is the only way to solve it, short of revolution. And, as I said, some increments are larger than others.
VOTE EDWARDS '08!!

The hour is late and the change must come from within yourselves. It will never come from Washington to you. In Washington, change is off the table. They would like you to believe otherwise. Please realize this and change yourself for the better now. Since the invention and application of the internet power now flows from the outside inward. You have the power and your immediate future depends upon your using it wisely.

One more thing Mike: you make a hell of a cheerleader...the only problem is that no one told you and Nichols we have lost the war...

But that is the wonderful thing about waking up...one day the world before your eyes changes...and with it, so will you.

That is the problem with you and your heroes Mike, we don't have the time to solve climate change incrementally or otherwise. Had Clinton actually provided leadership on the issue instead of pay lip service to it, like Edwards did in the Senate, maybe I might jump on your bandwagon. Perhaps no one has enlightened you my friend, the world we live in is under going profound transformation of an order of magnitude not seen in human history. Life as we know it is a thing of the past and the Cave Party along with their status quo politicians are barking up the wrong tree. My advice to you is learn how to survive in the world to come in our life times. Maybe Nichols and his freinds at the Nation can turn their gas guzzlers into plow shares...

"The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same players and expecting a different result. That's the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."-Barack Obama

www.barackobama.com/issues/corruption/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006

http://fairvote.org/?page=1755

www.usaspending.gov and SB 1789 were authored by Barack Obama. Some people walk the walk, some people bluster.

For rmax

Paul Street is a hack entitled to his whacked out opinion, but it is whacked out.

Example 1: "Dealing with Serbia in the 1990s cemented the neocon-neolib entente. By Sept. 11, 2001, these two groups had converged as a single ideological family. They agreed that American nationalism was best expressed in world affairs as a progressive imperialism. The rallying call for armed action would be promoting human rights and democratic government among peoples who resisted American hegemony." – Paul Street http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?%20SectionID=72&ItemID=12928

Who elected Musharraf and the Taliban to run Afghanistan and Pakistan? Of course any political grouping with enough guns and minimal investments in twentieth century modernity, (The Taliban outlawed music, girls schools, and required women to wear head-to-toe coverings among other things like chopping people's hands off for stealing), is going to oppose them when they try to just take power with the barrel of a gun and enforce an archaic and ethnically-exclusive form of Islam on everybody who is Afghan.

Who elected Milosevic to run Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Bosnia? FYI, the Green Party of Germany voted to authorize Germany to participate in NATO operations in Kosovo in 1999. Kosovo is 90% Albanian. Milosevic was responsible for genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia and today there is peace in those nations because of NATO intervention. Intervention through NATO in Southeastern Europe has brought increased stability to not just the former republics of Yugoslavia, but to the entire region which was impacted by emigration out of the conflict zones. Is ending genocide in the Balkans more important than ending genocide somewhere else? No. Was it more practical to intervene in the Balkans in the 1990s than in Iraq in 2003-2009(dread ) given the assets of the states participating in the coalition, our relations with states neighboring the conflict zone, and the logistical-space of the area in which American soliders would operate? Yes.
Furthermore, one American politician's hypocrisy does not make everyone who does believe in human rights and democratic government as rationales for using military force in their turn hypocrites.

Example 2: "[Obama] praises the architects of the Cold War for checking the Soviet Union's nefarious designs "to spread [in Obama's words] its totalitarian brand of communism."- Paul Street
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?%20SectionID=72&ItemID=12928

Obama's words? Give me a break. They were also Trotksy's words. The fact that "the USSR modeled the possibility of independent national development outside the parameters of U.S.-led world-capitalist supervision" does not dismiss the fascism that made it possible. Hitler also modeled a possibility of independent development outside the parameters of British-led world-capitalist development and the fascism of Mobutuism 'modeled a possibility of independent development outside the parameters of US-led world-capitalist development'. There is nothing intrinsic to that outsider status that is inherently good.

"The so-called friends of the Soviet Union (left democrats, pacifists, Brandlerites, and the like) repeat the argument of the Comintern functionaries that the struggle against the Stalinist bureaucracy, i.e., first of all criticism of its false policies, "helps the counter-revolution." This is the standpoint of the political lackeys of the bureaucracy, but never that of revolutionists. The Soviet Union both internally and externally can be defended only by means of a correct policy. All other considerations are either secondary or simply lying phrases.

The present CPSU is not a party but an apparatus of domination in the hands of an uncontrolled bureaucracy. Within the framework of the CPSU and outside of it takes place the grouping of the scattered elements of the two basic parties: the proletarian and the Thermidorean-Bonapartist. Rising above both of them, the centrist bureaucracy wages a war of annihilation against the Bolshevik-Leninists. While coming into sharp clashes from time to time with their Thermidorean half-allies, the Stalinists, nevertheless, clear the road for the latter by crushing, strangling, and corrupting the Bolshevik Party."

"Only the creation of the Marxist International, completely independent of the Stalinist bureaucracy and counterposed politically to it, can save the USSR from collapse by binding its destiny with the destiny of the world proletarian revolution."- Leon Trotsky
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330715.htm

Paul Street's cynicism is not refreshing and is exactly why I am not voting for the warmongering Edwards or the Clintons.

VOTE OBAMA. CHANGE AMERICA. CHANGE THE WORLD.

NEVER FORGET WHO VOTED FOR THE WAR!

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

YEAs ---77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

Vote EDWARDS in '08 and start fixing the problems in '09!

Yes Huck, you take that banner of conscience and hold it high as all three of you march across that bridge to nowhere, and when you are joined by enough to make a difference call me, and maybe I'll join you. Until then I think I'll stay here and work on incrementally solving the problems, instead of volunteering for martyrdom. By the way, some increments are bigger than others!

The only thing required of me, Mike, is to follow my consicence, nothing more.

I also note your angst with Hillary. Well, after she wins the nomination I guess you will be eating some humble pie once you cast your vote for her. Conversely, I would NEVER vote for Bush in a skirt or is it Bush light. Take your pick as you march down the yellow brick road to Oz city and peel back the curtain discovering the secret of the wizard. Maybe Nichols and his corporate handlers can join you along with the other sheeple.

If Edwards pulls off this upset in Iowa, it will signal the beginning of a peaceful revolution. He will head into New Hampshire and SC with the wind at his back and the mainstream media at his throat, like a pack of wild dogs, unlike the lap-dogs they have been for the corporatist candidates in both parties. Mark my words.

Huck, you need to step back through the looking glass into reality, because right now, you are in some other alternate universe. As I said before, without a revolution to bring instant change, you must work within the confines of the system. While you may not recognize the difference, we are much better off after the dems took control of the house and senate in 2007. No, we are not getting everything we want, not even close, but at least we are having some dialog that would never have occured with the Republican Crime Family running the show.
By the way, here is some good news for you - Latest polls in Iowa show Edwards pulling even with Obama at 29% each and Clinton at 28%. You and DK should have worked a lot harder in Iowa, and I think he should have had an office there.

Want to see the difference between Edwards and Kucinich (and Paul) over the legality of "preventive/premptive" wars, wars not approved by the U.N. and the role of Congress and war? Check out this War and Law League questionaire:

http://www.warandlaw.org/files/index.html

Mike just curious what adjunct universe are you living in? Incremental change? When the Cave Party is collapsing that is all they can provide: masters at sweeping a few crumbs of the table to keep the sheeple from starving. Maybe you ought to feed from another trough my friend.

Just as an aside, I can hardly wait to cast my "spoiler" vote against the pond scum most of the people (including Nichols) are in bed with.

Show me a Kucinich win in Iowa or New Hampshire and I'll vote for him here in the SC primary. Otherwise I'll vote to keep Clinton off the 2008 ballot here. And by the way, Edwards is NOT the choice of the media circus. As far as they're concerned, it's an Obama/Clinton race in the Democratic Party. Edwards has had to stuggle and spend a great deal of time and resources to be third in the polls in Iowa.

rickster469 - "Oh were awake enough, we just can't get out of the habit of sticking with the anointed, perceived winners. That's what's disgusting."

If the electorate were awake enough, we wouldn't be having this conversation, period.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE APATHY!

Why aren't the candidates organizing consciousness raising rallies and marches to push their agendas and show the body politic just what they're made of? They should be on the front lines. And why isn't Al Gore out marching and demonstrating and really showing the corporate power structure that we the people are more than just concerned about the environment and not just dupes of over sentimentalized Hollywood P.R. images. As much as I hate the mainstream choices that we have been given to vote for (as if we lived in a true democracy), at least Edwards is out there among the people a la Bobby Kennedy. He is right, things will not change without a real power struggle. Organize and fight for the future for the planet and the children. When Emerson came to visit Thoreau in jail for an act of civil disobedience...the story goes,he asked Thoreau,"what are you doing in there Henry?" and Thoreau's reply was "what are you doing out there Ralph?" There will never be any changes made to insure the health and future of our society unless we have real leaders who are willing to sit in, march, and demonstrate with the people. I'm ready to go.

Well, rmax, I read the Paul Street article "The Obama Illusion". Man, that guy really hates Barack Obama for some reason. All I can say is, if that is the best he can come up with to slam Obama, my faith is redoubled and I'm ready to get off CD and sign up for some serious volunteer time with the Obama campaign (though I'm still voting Kucinich in my state's primary).

Street's main problem with BHO seems to be that he is not Angela Davis. No, indeed, he is the most likely next President of the United States, and that is no small feat (actually it's pretty incredible) for an idealistic, progressive-minded black man. I count 3 or 4 actual bads; the rest is crap.

Obama is a player for sure, but he is the only one of them I actually trust. Partly it's because he is black; that's something you really can't fake. But he also projects something more that you can't fake, either, whereas Edwards comes across as totally fake.

Kucinich I trust, also, and like even better, but he's not a player. Too bad. Next time, if there is a next time, get in the game for real, DK.

The latest edition of "The Nation" explains why they will not only not endorse Kucinich, but any other candidate at this time

MikeBinSC "I would love to see Dennis Kucinich elected president,

Then vote for him damn it, we're only in the primaries. He can be elected if people will just vote their conscience. Screw what the news people are saying.

"it does not appear that the electorate is yet awake enough for that to happen."

Oh were awake enough, we just can't get out of the habit of sticking with the anointed, perceived winners. That's what's disgusting.

we are left with another choice of incremental change.

Again!

"This is the choice of every voter, you can waste your vote on an unelectable independent to make yourself feel better, or you can be a part of taking your country back, however incrementally, period."

Incrementally and how much longer do we have to wait for that? I've been watching that incrementally now for over thirty years. Guess what? We've gone backwards. We need a major event change here; I'm tired of being incrementally beaten to death; I'm tired of being incrementally forced into slavery; I'm tired of seeing this country incrementally destroyed.

Kucinich is for real, Edwards is just incremental, and the rest don't even deserve consideration.

Small ripples can eventually add together to make big waves.

That's funny it's never happened never will. You see they have to be on the same wavelength at the same moment in the same place. Otherwise you just have incremental waves.

Huck, you and your buds are hopeless Idealists, not that being an Idealist is a bad thing, but you need to anchor your beliefs in reality. So, until you are ready to fire the first shots in the revolution, and that doesn't mean shooting off your mouth, open your eyes and accept a few doses of reality.

Huck, short of a revolution, you are looking at incremental change, period.
The Idiot-In-Chief stands ready to legislate by veto now, and they had to bargain with him to get an increase in minimun wage. That situation will change with a president with progressive ideas at the helm, period.

Ken Mitchell "Unfortunately, unlike Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, Edwards opposes medical marijuana."

Kucinich doesn't support medical marijuana he supports ending the prohibition of it. Medical marijuana is nonsense if marijuana is legal. I don't know why anybody would support medical marijuana when it needs to be legal.

I don't know why anybody would support drug prohibition period Kucinich would probably work to put and end to the war on some drugs.

Actually Mike you and your companions in the Cave party were the one's wasting your vote as noted above. But feel free to remain asleep through the next decade or at lease until all the polar ice caps have melted and people begin to refer to them in the past tense or "once upon a time..."

Your hero Bubba never did one thing to reverse climate change and he had 8 years to do so. Wake up, lad!

Don't you folks love the swan song of the disempowered: "take you country back." The presupposition is that by taking your country back you vote Democratic. Is that not what the country did in 2006? Democrats now control both house of congress and what did it get us? In case you had not noticed the stalwarts in the "Cave" party just extended funding of the Iraq war without an exit plan (I believe their fifth since they won the election). Impeachment is off the table. Recent reports indicate Pelosi was briedfed on torture and sanctioned the practice. The Cave party gave us a minimum wage bill instead of a living wage for the poor. THe cave party is participating in the elimination of our freedoms by expanding (not crushing) government surviellence, and protecting companies who do their bidding. And the beat goes on without so much of a whimper from the change the party illussionists and take back our country rhetoric ad nausea..

rikster, huck, logrithmic,

You can not find anyone who's views on government are more progressive than mine, period. You also can not find anyone based any more in reality and logic than I am, period.

Elections in our two-party system in America today are about winning, period. Absent some really massive event, well covered (not likely) in the corporate controlled MSM, the views of the brainwashed sheeple will only change incrementally, period. This is why none of the candidates at the extreme of either party can gain any traction, period. Yes, more of the sheeple are waking up to the pain being inflicted by George Bush and the Republican Crime Family with every day that passes.

I would love to see Dennis Kucinich elected president, but it does not appear that the electorate is yet awake enough for that to happen, so, we are left with another choice of incremental change. Edwards is that choice, period. His views on the important issues are very progressive, while not as progressive as Dennis Kucinich's. With Edwards going in with a number of new, more progressive senators and representatives, it equates to a charge up the hill to retake America and our democracy back from the corporate masters.

This is the choice of every voter, you can waste your vote on an unelectable independent to make yourself feel better, or you can be a part of taking your country back, however incrementally, period. Small ripples can eventually add together to make big waves. Progress is progress, period.

Kudos to rickster469! Exactly my sentiments (ibid. above...)

By the way, I have met Dennis Kucinich personally, and find him most sincere; though anyone following his career could easily see that I think. I have never donated to any political party or candidate but him in my entire life. I consider him a worthy investment in America's future. He's the best we got folks! (though I do like Nader) Only he and Nader have a consistent record to prove their integrity. I guess Nader held his nose with some of what Edwards has catered to; too bad he doesn't see DK more clearly. Actually Kucinich/Nader would be my 'dream team.' Common Raph! Pay attention!

Commentarian "there is no other real qualified candidate but DK."

That's hitting the nail on the head. The only person who represents the people, Kucinich, can't win because a lot of people are being led around by the nose and voting for the most popular person on the playground.

That's not winning that's losing. It's the worst kind of losing, it's giving up on your self.

Kucinich is the only person who represents real change. The rest represent change that is and will only be marginal.

Unfortunately, unlike Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, Edwards opposes medical marijuana. He claims that it will send the wrong message to the children. Medical Codene and Morphine, far more addictive are okay, but medical marijuana is bad? Give me a break.

I do find it hopeful that Kucinich has continued to grow grass-roots support. That is the kind of foundation that indicates authenticity. He has been persisting for 3 election cycles now and shows no signs of letting up. He's a Ralph Nader with a little more creative vision thrown in. What more could we want? Many might not understand him because he is too far ahead of them. If there were not so many major crises going on we might have more time, but we need to wake up folks!