One day to go before the 2008 U.S. Election. As a citizen of our country we are free to choose and decide of who is the best politician for us but we must vote wisely, think twice and be more knowledgeable enough to choose the best president that will represent our country for the next four years. Does the media’s reporting favor Barack Obama? Jonah Goldberg of the National Review Online explains that this bias is probably the result of reporters playing nice with the frontrunner. As Goldberg puts it, “most of the reporters covering these campaigns want to be rewarded with White House correspondent jobs.” They might simply want to ensure that they’ll have easier access to who they think will be president. John Harris and Jim VandeHei of Politico have another view. They claim that the Project for Excellence in Journalism (funded by Pew Research Center) found that six out of ten John McCain stories were negatively slanted. Moreover, Obama has had more than two times as many positive stories published about him than McCain. In a video opinion piece, VandeHei believes that the GOP is blaming the media because McCain’s campaign has started to dwindle. “There’s always pile-on at the end of a campaign,” VandeHei says, but in this case, it’s the policies and campaign strategies that have led to McCain’s difficulties. The media loves a frontrunner, and they favor momentum. It’s the kind of momentum quick cash loans can give your wallet when you need it. Will someone other than the frontrunner here bring America lasting change?
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

How old are you dougnwagner? It's my guess that you are one of those twenty-somethings with a little education and no real life experience, attracted to get involved in the Obama campaign by his feel-good rhetoric.

Don't misunderstand me here, I think that's a good thing, because young people need to get involved, as they have been uninvolved for much to long already.

Decisions have been made by presidents and politicians of both parties, bad decisions, over the last four or five decades that will, very surely, negatively affect your life, and the lives of your children and your grandchildren, and you, apparently, have no in-depth understanding of where we have been nor where we are going.

I see it in your child-like, infantile efforts to win for Obama by smearing the only other electable top-tier candidate, John Edwards, who is actually speaking the truth about what needs to be done in order to right the ship of state, that is listing so far over from the tidal wave of corporate money, that it is in serious danger of capsizing. You need to understand that if the ship goes down, you, your friends and families are going down too.

Don't let your zeal for short-term profits blind you to the bigger picture and the long term goals. Yes, it is about change, and it's about getting out the message of what changes are needed. And right now, Edwards is speaking the message of change while Obama is showing the face of change.

As I have said before, the best thing that could emerge from the Democratic primary would be a ticket with both Edwards and Obama on it. Now that is something to work for.

This is all well and good, but why does ANYONE still think that our votes matter? The last two "Elections" were openly stolen, and there have not been any repercussions whatsoever for those involved. I'm registered as an Independent, but I'm not going to waste my time anymore screaming at a wall. I'm staying home this year,and awaiting the inevitable bullet to the head.

It is ridiculous to blind oneself into thinking that Democrats had nothing to do with Bush's policies. They failed to act every chance they had in limiting or stopping Bush. Just because Nader endorsed Edwards, doesn't legitimize Edwards. I respect Nader, but I am not his "follower." Just about anyone would be better than Bush, but I don't want just anyone.

Mike,

the Edwards campaign is over, move on with your life.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318

Dennis Kucinich: "In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.

He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."

I would like to ask this question of Mr. Moore.

Since the Gross Domestic Product per capita of Canada and Michigan are very close, what's stopping the people of MICHIGAN from providing universal healthcare for the 9 million citizens of MICHIGAN, since Canada is able to provide universal healthcare to their 33 million citizens?

It's not like I, a Virginian don't want universal healthcare, I just don't want the CENTRAL government trying to control it. It is monopolistic, and ANATHEMA to true American economic ideals.

I raise these questions because I feel that healthcare is the MAJOR issue dividing those with Liberal views from giving Ron Paul, and the Libertarian view, a second look.

The greatest threat to our individual freedom today is hegemony. And the major monopolies that we will have to struggle with in order to fix this nation are corporate, financial, and authoritative. Ron Paul certainly SOUNDS like he wants to TRULY begin "changing" things. And his voting record proves it.

Stop giving your freedom away to a blind, uncaring central power. History has proven that it never works.

Yes dougnwagner, Obama is consistent, consistently wishy-washy.

I don't agree with Obama on every issue but at least he is CONSISTENT on the issues. The new kind of politics is about CONSISTENCY and dealing with the numerous crises created by 'the greediest generation'.

Edwards is part of the status quo that says anything to win. He voted for the Iraq war (now he says he's against it), he voted for MFN status for China (but he says he supports fair trade), he dishonestly characterizes Obama's healthcare plan's focus on affordability while omitting the law enforcement costs of his own mandate proposal, he say's he against predatory lending yet when he worked at Fortress Investment Group (the #2 contributor to his campaign) they enlarged their investments in predatory lending, in February he refused to reveal who his bundlers were, but after being shamed into doing that, he still refuses to disclose his largest bundlers (unlike Obama and Clinton)or any estimate of how much any of his bundlers raise. Is he the agent of change? I don't think so.

Example A: Healthcare: The Costs versus The Mandates

"Cost is the number one reason that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance and thousands more are edging toward bankruptcy every day…What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it." - Barack Obama

What good is an unaffordable health care mandate? What are we going to do, throw everyone in prison who doesn't have health insurance when they're caught speeding?

The Federal Employees Plan

"To begin with, not everyone makes the $165,000 a year or so that members of Congress do. In fact, at least 100,000 federal workers — at least 5 percent of the active work force — do not have health insurance. In many cases, according to the union that represents the workers, they consider even the cheapest options within the federal plan unaffordable. The lowest-priced family coverage offered by Blue Cross, for example, costs the employee about $2,400 a year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/business/20fedhealth.html

The Massachusetts Plan

"But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.

Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state's insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year's national average. That would undercut the plan's secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs."We're going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits," said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. "If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don't think health reform is sustainable."…

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html

Obama and Kucinich have been CONSISTENT which is more than I can say for Edwards or Clinton who voted for the war.

"Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war."

"Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were "enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html

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

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

"There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush's war, it's all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Or that we would have gotten Iraq right if we went in with more troops, or if we had a different proconsul instead of Paul Bremer, or if only there were a stronger Iraqi Prime Minister.

These are the easy answers. And like most easy answers, they are partially true. But they don't tell the whole truth, because they overlook a harder and more fundamental truth. The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalog of many mistakes - it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought…

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?…

We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.

That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States

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

Right on tailcap, its worse than crack, the thought police all ready have control of these peoples minds. In a time of universal deceit,telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. PEACE

You all must be smokin crack if you think things are going to change! We have no choices, sorry. Those that can win are already bought and sold. Those that aren't don't have a chance. I heard a song, it went like this:

IF I WERE PRESIDENT I'D BE ELECTED ON FRIDAY
ASSASSINATED ON SATURDAY
BURIED ON SUNDAY
AND THEY GO BACK TO WORK ON MONDAY

The last two elections were rigged. Do you think the next one won't be? It's like Matrix Time! They own the White House, the Congress, the Courts and the voting machines. What's next? A police state with Thought Police in every house. Wait, what time is it? 1984? 1937? No, 2008. And I know what you are thinking: another pessimist! Wrong, I'm an optimist! You see a pessimist thinks things can't get any worse and an optimist believes they can! No seriously! And that's the truth.

I liked Obama...until I heard his speech at AIPAC. Far from comforting. An audacious deference to power is an understatement. He's style over substance. A puppet is more like it. Lots of buzz words, little true change.

Edwards? A limousine liberal...nothing more, nothing less. Discussing the woes of the poor as he gets severed caviar by his servants at his mansion. Yeah, he knows what I'm going through.

Hilary? Pardon me while I puke and laugh...simultaneously.

I'd sooner vote for Hugo fucking Chavez than any of those three posers. All three of these people are the type that will say whatever they need to say to get elected. Once elected, they would simply do as they are told by the same animals (can you guess whom I'm referring to?) that have run this country to the ground.

We, as a country, are drowning and these three phony assholes are doing nothing but describing the waters to us. That's helpful, right?

We need radical change from the disastrous course we are on. These three candidates represent nothing more than a rearranging of the furniture. No real change at all. The only two candidates that represent true change are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. That's why the main stream media ignores and ridicules them. That's why they don't stand a chance.

We are willing participants to our own demise. And it's well deserved.

Obama voted "present" on bills for which he didn't have the guts to vote No. Sweet. If he's progressive, I'm Karl Marx.

The Obama Illusion
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

Obama's Audacious Deference to Power
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61
"Barack Obama's latest book reveals the presidential aspirant to be a rank racial accommodationist and political opportunist. The Illinois Senator urges empathy for those in power, labels critics on the Left cranks and zealots, and whitewashes America's past and present crimes. In the final analysis, Obama is an 'authoritarian corporate imperial insider' - a front-running candidate for betrayal."

The Bushes and the Clintons are on the same wave length. I wouldn't consider voting for war hawks Obama or Clinton, who both support Joe Lieberman and an attack on Iran. Hillary, just like Nancy Pelosi, is a Bush supporter and protector:

Robert Parry: Hillary Clinton Signals Free Pass for Bush
"Former President Bill Clinton's comment that his wife's 'first thing' as President would be to send him and former President George H.W. Bush on a worldwide fence-mending tour has a political subtext," reports investigative journalist Robert Parry. "It signals that a second Clinton administration would give a free pass to the second Bush administration on its abuses."

And why not? She's gone along with everything Bush has asked for. Nothing will change under her presidency. Don't waste your vote on her or Obama.

"In the first two weeks of the 110th Congress, Senator Obama helped lead the Senate to pass the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill, by a 96-2 vote. This landmark bill was signed into law by the President in September 2007.

The final bill that the Congress passed closely mirrored and drew key provisions in a bill (S. 230) that Senators Obama and Feingold introduced in January 2007 to establish a "gold standard" for reform. Among the provisions in the Obama-Feingold bill that were adopted by the Senate and the House were: strict bans on receiving gifts and meals from lobbyists; new rules to slow the revolving door between public and private sector service; and an end to the subsidized use of corporate jets.

Most importantly, the final reform bill contained a provision pushed by Senator Obama to require the disclosure of contributions that registered lobbyists "bundle" – that is, collect or arrange – for candidates, leadership PACs, and party committees. The New York Times called this provision "the most sweeping" in the bill, and the Washington Post said: "No single change would add more to public understanding of how money really operates in Washington."

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011802176.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html

"Candidates are not required to reveal the identities of "bundlers" — people who collect contributions from many individuals — and disclosure records range from inadequate to spotty to nonexistent. The best, but still inadequate, disclosure comes from Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have provided the identities of their big bundlers and the amounts but only within broad ranges. Ms. Clinton, for instance, lists 311 "Hillraisers" who have brought in at least $100,000 each — but with no indication of how much each is responsible for. Mr. Obama is slightly more specific; he lists "bundlers" within the ranges of $50,000 to $100,000; $100,000 to $200,000; and $200,000 and up."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901416.html

"THE 2008 presidential field has already begun to sort itself into candidates willing to disclose the identities of their big financiers and those who balk at providing this critical information. On the side of real disclosure are three Democrats, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, along with two Republicans, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and — in the latest addition to the ranks of openness — Mitt Romney. Officials of the former Massachusetts governor's campaign told us that Mr. Romney will report the names of his big bundlers, the fundraisers who collect donations from large numbers of people and who thereby help their candidate far beyond the maximum of $2,300 they are legally allowed to contribute directly. Declining to provide this information are Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, and Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani."

"Mr. Edwards, alone among Democratic candidates in 2004 in refusing to disclose the names of his bundlers, is well aware of both the value and peril of bundlers; his campaign was fined $9,500 by the Federal Election Commission last year for accepting in-kind contributions and illegally reimbursed donations from one of its big 2004 bundlers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701145.html

Kate Anne,

Maybe one day Edwards will evolve to tell the truth about his bundlers. Until then, I'm voting for Barack Obama, who opposed this war from the beginning, 2002.

"While Edwards and Republicans Mitt Romney, Giuliani, John McCain and Fred Thompson are providing no specific information on how much their bundlers or other fundraisers have actually raised (Giuliani has disclosed those who have either pledged or raisedat least $50,000), each of them has provided a substantial list of bundlers or fundraisers. Each has also indicated that some fundraisers were expected to produce tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of dollars. There is no reason to suspect that these campaigns are any less reliant on their fundraisers than Clinton and Obama."

http://www.citizen.org/documents/IndustryCoding.pdf
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org

Edwards "Bundler" To Go To Prison

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/19/politics/washingtonpost/main3279132.shtml

Kate Anne,

maybe one day John Edwards will evolve to tell the truth about his bundlers. Until then, I'm voting for Barack Obama, who opposed this war from the beginning, 2002.

"While Edwards and Republicans Mitt Romney, Giuliani, John McCain and Fred Thompson are providing no specific information on how much their bundlers or other fundraisers have actually raised (Giuliani has disclosed those who have either pledged or raisedat least $50,000), each of them has provided a substantial list of bundlers or fundraisers. Each has also indicated that some fundraisers were expected to produce tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of dollars. There is no reason to suspect that these campaigns are any less reliant on their fundraisers than Clinton and Obama."

http://www.citizen.org/documents/IndustryCoding.pdf

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org

Edwards "Bundler" To Go To Prison

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/19/politics/washingtonpost/main3279132.shtml

"Candidates are not required to reveal the identities of "bundlers" — people who collect contributions from many individuals — and disclosure records range from inadequate to spotty to nonexistent. The best, but still inadequate, disclosure comes from Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have provided the identities of their big bundlers and the amounts but only within broad ranges. Ms. Clinton, for instance, lists 311 "Hillraisers" who have brought in at least $100,000 each — but with no indication of how much each is responsible for. Mr. Obama is slightly more specific; he lists "bundlers" within the ranges of $50,000 to $100,000; $100,000 to $200,000; and $200,000 and up."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901416.html

"THE 2008 presidential field has already begun to sort itself into candidates willing to disclose the identities of their big financiers and those who balk at providing this critical information. On the side of real disclosure are three Democrats, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, along with two Republicans, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and — in the latest addition to the ranks of openness — Mitt Romney. Officials of the former Massachusetts governor's campaign told us that Mr. Romney will report the names of his big bundlers, the fundraisers who collect donations from large numbers of people and who thereby help their candidate far beyond the maximum of $2,300 they are legally allowed to contribute directly. Declining to provide this information are Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, and Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani."

"Mr. Edwards, alone among Democratic candidates in 2004 in refusing to disclose the names of his bundlers, is well aware of both the value and peril of bundlers; his campaign was fined $9,500 by the Federal Election Commission last year for accepting in-kind contributions and illegally reimbursed donations from one of its big 2004 bundlers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701145.html

"In the first two weeks of the 110th Congress, Senator Obama helped lead the Senate to pass the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill, by a 96-2 vote. This landmark bill was signed into law by the President in September 2007.

The final bill that the Congress passed closely mirrored and drew key provisions in a bill (S. 230) that Senators Obama and Feingold introduced in January 2007 to establish a "gold standard" for reform. Among the provisions in the Obama-Feingold bill that were adopted by the Senate and the House were: strict bans on receiving gifts and meals from lobbyists; new rules to slow the revolving door between public and private sector service; and an end to the subsidized use of corporate jets.

Most importantly, the final reform bill contained a provision pushed by Senator Obama to require the disclosure of contributions that registered lobbyists "bundle" – that is, collect or arrange – for candidates, leadership PACs, and party committees. The New York Times called this provision "the most sweeping" in the bill, and the Washington Post said: "No single change would add more to public understanding of how money really operates in Washington."

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011802176.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html

Well, they both spout feel-good pablum to cover up their cynical support of the status quo. in that respect they are peas-in-a-pod.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/dems-j03.shtml

EDWARDS at least has some actual substance to what he says--we need to give him a chance to show that this carries over to what he does....

OBAMA doesn't really say anything and his votes thus far have been about the same as Clinton's

CLINTON is just a DIMO--Democrat in Name Only--just like her DIMO husband

VOTE EDWARDS!

Michael--to support Edwards how about getting your fine letter to the press? It made a large impression on me and I assume it would on many independents.

Michael Moore, if Dennis isn't serious about running, then why is he suing the Texas Democratic Party to get on the ballot?

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_7867042

Kucinich files lawsuit after party denies him place on ballot
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 01/02/2008 09:39:43 PM MST

AUSTIN—Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, along with supporter Willie Nelson, have filed a lawsuit to get Kucinich on the ballot in Texas after they say the Texas Democratic Party rejected his application.
The civil lawsuit was delivered late Wednesday afternoon to U.S. District Court for the Western District of the United States, Kucinich spokesman Andy Juniewicz said late Wednesday evening.
The lawsuit says that Kucinich was informed by the Texas Democratic Party on Wednesday that his application was "defective" because he crossed out a loyalty oath in the application that said he would swear to support whoever the Democratic nominee for president might be.
The lawsuit asks that a temporary restraining order be issued to stop the Texas Democratic Party from certifying to the Texas Secretary of State a list of candidates and to restrict the secretary of state from accepting any list that doesn't include the name of a qualified candidate who refuses the loyalty oath.
Kucinich, a congressman from Ohio, also wants the court to declare that the oath requirement violates the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment in the Constitution.
"He's right to challenge a blind loyalty oath to the Democratic Party because it's un-American," Willie Nelson said in a news release from the Kucinich campaign.
Calls for comment made to the Texas Democratic Party and the secretary of state's office after business hours on Wednesday were not immediately returned.

All of the candidates are pro war and pro Israel and aren't concerned about killing millions of innocent civilians to further the agenda of the U.S. military-industrial complex war profiteers.

Dennis Kucinich along with Mike Gravel are the only decent ones among the bunch, and they've taken that choice away, so what's the point in voting if I and many others are not represented?

Some great discussion here. I like Kucinich but electability must be a factor and John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards are a great team.

For anyone needing/wanting a link for the info gathered by Michael in Seattle and posted by atruepatriot without a link, I googled and found it, printable version:

http://blog.johnedwards.com/print/2008/1/2/1430/30706

Health care is a right and providing healing shouldn't be something someone/some industry makes a killing over. We must get profiteering out of healthcare. [Yes, and out of warfare and out of prisons....]

Ron Paul when viewed in total is unacceptable, however right on some of his comments are, and how well they are delivered. [Do your homework!!!]

John Edwards hasn't waffled or flip-flopped, he has GROWN, EVOLVED. He has been out there with the union members and acting on what he now espouses. He's against unsafe nuclear power and for affordable education. I see so many positives and expect more.

Thom Hartmann says we should support whomever the Dems nominate. I guess that must include fluffy Obama (whose first votes in Congress belied his message) and hawkish Hillary. This go round I have donated money to John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd -- and I would rather it be one of them. (Yeah, Richardson has possibilities too.) But Thom says FDR was turned into a populist by the times and the people. Whoever the candidate let us pray, indeed let us insist that (s)he rise to the occasion. Food for thought.

Edwards certainly deserves a second look. Is he sincere about challenging corporate power and piracy? Will he really be a champion of the middle class and working poor (notice I've included the working poor because all anyone seems to talk about it is the "middle class," like they're the only ones that count--pffft!).

DK seems to have a good heart, but I think even he acknowledges that his chances of getting elected are slim to none, as probably Nader does. Yet, perhaps their goal is be a reminder of what's really at stake. My prediction is that if the economy starts to worsen during the primary, Edward's message will resonate louder--much louder than Puke Hillary Clinton's (sorry Hillary)

Michael Moore, tear down this Corpmockracy!

No, MIchael, it's not hard to get past Edwards' hair; it's hard to get past stupid remarks about it. Geez, you too? C'mon.

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is the darling of the military-industrial complex and has lots of close corporate and lobbyist ties. She stands just far enough to the left of the neocons to appear to many as a liberal, but she is not liberal, much less progressive. She's much much tougher than Bill. Things were good under Bill. Would they be good under Hillary? Hard to say, but she has made clear that she is a war hawk with no apologies.

Barack Obama is likeable and gives rousing speeches that sadly lack substance. Saying things like "we have to work together" is no substitute for saying what he would do to accomplish that. He says what we need, but we're intelligent people who can see that for ourselves. We need him to say what he will do.

John Edwards is right on the money with his criticism of corporate greed and power. He stuffs his speeches with substance, and he's not afraid to use fighting words -- the right kind of fighting words, taking on the greedy powers, not innocent civilians abroad. He deserves a lot of support for his change of heart about Iraq once he learned it was all based on lies. Sure, it might have been better if he'd been as prescient as the rest of us (we all knew it was a pack of lies, right?) but when presented with the truth, he adapted to it instead of rationalizing his earlier stance and trangulating via focus groups and polls and tap-dancing around. Edwards is the statesman in waiting. The others are consummate politicians.

MY LETTER TO MICHAEL MORE (his mailbox is full)

Michael, I heard you speak at an Antioch Commencment ceremony. I have loved your movies and admired your drive. Thanks. However.. I don't know why you diss Kucinich so flippantly merely because he suggests a 2nd choice in the Iowa Caucuses? They are run a bit differently and so.. I think there is some strategic stuff that has to happen. I don't know why you seem to blame him for "resigning to losing" . I don't think he is at ALL! He is the ONLY one up there that is promoting a Single Payer health care system and has been very consistant on his position on the Iraq war AND he has put up the Impeachment bill for Cheney.!.. (that seems to finally be getting some teeth)You know and I know that the Media has given him the shaft. They are afraid of him and that is why they put him last. Yet you blame HIM for his pragamatic choices in manuevering in another election that is hell bent on making sure he doesn't win. He has had more tenacity and drive than any of them. But no money. (Huccabee is poor too apparently but the insanity of the religious right seems to prop him up easily). I think that your flippant decision not to "waste time" on Kucinich is unfair. You are now part of the problem when you make statements like that. Where is your courage? If I had a dime for everytime I heard someone say "I like Kucinich BUT'" I could probably get our country out of hock. OK..I am being sarcastic... but you get my point. Yeah.. Kucinich always seems to have a snowball chance in hell of getting elected president. BUT. .I am still planning on voting for him in the primary. Just like I did in 04. He has no chance if no one supports him and backs him. You have clout. You have money!.. You could choose.. but you do not. Why? are you being pragmatic too?

Luckylefty and AndyUK got it exactly right and hit the nail on the head.
The congress represents the monied and business class and not the average
Joe. The congress is corrupt not to the bones but to the bones marrow.
Every one of those candidates whether a repubican or a democrat is bought
including Kucinch and Ron Paul.

I don't know an awfull lot about US politics, but it does seem that you have two parties who share very similar views. This has become the norm in the UK since Tony Blair re-invented the Labour party to become "New Labour". This party has divorced itself totally from the original aims of the Labour party - looking after the workers, providing healthcare, education -, and allied itself to the commercial world, employing spin, and attracting "big bucks" from the city, whilst at the same time distancing the party from the unions. It has become as right of centre as the Conservative party, and may as well be a clone. It looks very much (judging by the donations) as though Obama, Clinton and Edwards are being sponsored heavily by the same people - huge law firms and big business, in order to do their bidding once elected.
Politics and business are linked as never before, and whoever we vote into power (whether in the US or UK), will not be interested in Joe Public, because our leaders never bite the hand which feeds them.

Let's get real. America is not grown up enough to elect a woman, a black, a Hispanic, an "Italian", a bold thinker-Kucinich-, a bald man- Giuliani has two strikes against him, a "funny" name- Huckabee,or a Mormon. Mark my words: It's going to be a male WASP.
And when Rove gets done with his dirty work, we'll end up with some MacCain. All the rest is good for the market place. At least a billion. Great for advertising revenues and great for the spinmeisters.

I visualize the fist woman president to be something like Dame Judy Dench's M in the James Bond movies, tough as nails but scrupulous, perceptive and intelligent. Now that would be a great president!

Here is the list of top industries contributions to
The Barack Obama campaign -

1 Lawyers/Law Firms $7,940,424

2 Retired $4,955,387

3 Securities & Investment $4,505,199

4 Misc Business $2,510,077

5 Real Estate $2,292,188

6 TV/Movies/Music $2,203,317

7 Education $2,112,520

8 Business Services $2,073,202

9 Health Professionals $1,330,743

10 Misc Finance $1,291,272

11 Printing & Publishing $956,853

12 Computers/Internet $940,459

13 Commercial Banks $865,856

14 Civil Servants/Public Officials $729,442

15 Non-Profit Institutions $481,761

16 Retail Sales $402,368

17 Insurance $390,513

18 Other $388,964

19 General Contractors $314,022

20 Hospitals/Nursing Homes $307,816

Here is the list of top industries contributions to
The Hillary Clinton campaign -

1 Lawyers/Law Firms $9,596,748

2 Securities & Investment $4,735,730

3 Retired $4,139,270

4 Real Estate $3,939,008

5 Business Services $2,539,364

6 Misc Business $2,301,186

7 TV/Movies/Music $2,142,921

8 Health Professionals $1,695,830

9 Education $1,640,224

10 Misc Finance $1,545,181

11 Commercial Banks $935,658

12 Computers/Internet $883,125

13 Printing & Publishing $800,191

14 Civil Servants/Public Officials $777,775

15 Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $657,450

16 Retail Sales $627,226

17 Non-Profit Institutions $583,178

18 Lobbyists $567,950

19 Insurance $525,938

20 Food & Beverage $516,670

Here is the list of top industries contributions to
The John Edwards campaign -

1 Lawyers/Law Firms $8,161,150

2 Democratic/Liberal $2,001,674

3 Retired $1,168,681

4 Securities & Investment $773,600

5 Real Estate $638,755

6 TV/Movies/Music $458,990

7 Business Services $434,793

8 Health Professionals $419,326

9 Misc Business $358,325

10 Education $351,261

11 Misc Finance $278,000

12 Printing & Publishing $193,734

13 Computers/Internet $182,585

14 Civil Servants/Public Officials $178,995

15 Commercial Banks $153,650

16 Insurance $129,600

17 Retail Sales $102,756

18 Non-Profit Institutions $92,750

19 Other $91,950

20 Accountants $66,950

All info is from -
www.opensecrets.org

steona, NADER BACKS EDWARDS TOO!!
WHAT BUSH DID IS NOT THE DEMOCRATS FAULT!!
IT'S A REPUBLICAN THING!! GET OVER IT!!
VOTE EDWARDS!!

I would never trust Michael Moore in deciding who to vote for after what he did to Nader. Endorsing him in 2000 and saying the same thing about the Democrats letting the country down and then after Nader gets blamed for Gore, he changed everything he was saying and started attacking Nader. Moore is an opportunist. "vote with your conscience" to "Don't vote with conscience vote for who ever is going to get elected." Democrats failed for eight years, why would you ever vote for them. Lesser of the Evil idea can be changed if many of you decide not to support a failing party. Bush is a terrible president but DEMOCRATS ENABLED HIM. It is a failure on their parts.
Stand up for what you believe in, not almost-good-enough.

dougnwagner, here is the list of top contributors to the
Barack Obama campaign -

Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
Exelon Corp $194,750
Citigroup Inc $180,650
Citadel Investment Group $166,600
Jones Day $158,400
Skadden, Arps et al $150,900
UBS AG $146,150
Time Warner $142,718
Harvard University $141,700
University of California $126,972
Jenner & Block $122,419
Kirkland & Ellis $111,951
UBS Americas $106,680
Morgan Stanley $104,425
WilmerHale $102,360
Credit Suisse Group $92,300

And here is the list of top contributors to the
Hillary Clinton campaign -

DLA Piper $356,100
Goldman Sachs $350,050
Morgan Stanley $323,550
Citigroup Inc $307,350
EMILY's List $211,642
National Amusements Inc $193,850
JP Morgan Chase & Co $173,350
Kirkland & Ellis $172,000
Skadden, Arps et al $151,460
Greenberg Traurig LLP $150,900
Cablevision Systems $135,113
Merrill Lynch $125,550
Time Warner $124,150
Lehman Brothers $123,450
Bear Stearns $120,580
Patton Boggs $118,400
Ernst & Young $110,650
Blank Rome LLP $105,100
Latham & Watkins $100,950
News Corp $99,350

And here is the list of top contributors to the
John Edwards campaign -

ActBlue $1,965,274
Fortress Investment Group $187,850
Stearns, Weaver et al $131,000
Lerach, Coughlin et al $93,950
Goldman Sachs $77,100
Whitten, Nelson et al $66,250
Girardi & Keese $64,400
Beasley, Allen et al $61,850
Watts Law Firm $61,000
Morgan & Morgan $60,050
Skadden, Arps et al $54,950
Deutsche Bank AG $54,750
Citigroup Inc $49,200
Sidley Austin LLP $43,950
Brent Coon & Assoc $42,700
Kramer, Dillof et al $36,400
Motley Rice LLC $36,200
Baron & Budd $35,590
Brayton Purcell $35,100
Weitz & Luxenberg $34,600

Any questions?

It may be that the Naders and Moores are like most other aging people -- they get more compromising in their age, rather than more radical.

to Caelidh,

Who is honest in mind, soul and everything, DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE THAN D.KUCINICH. The rest is not for a change, a radical change.

TO ALL THE BLOGGERS,

IF EVERYBODY OF US BACK KUCINICH, something great will happens. We will vote with and for our conciousness. NEVER MIND THE REST!!

Dennis Kucinich have a POPULIST plan!! we must wote with the heart, vote KUCINICH!!!!

The Iowa endorsment to OBAMA is perfectly strategic. What the profit of being out outscored for Hillary for example? Please read Kucinich platform. NO ONE HAS ANY BETTER TO OFFER!!! Please compare platforms....

THIS COUNTRY MEEDS A CHANGE, KUCINICH (even enrolled as a Democrat) is offering this change FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD!!!!

WHAT IS WRONG ABOUT A MINISTERY OF PEACE? THE WORLD NEEDS KUCINICH NO OTHER KIND OF POLICITIANS TIED UP TO MONEY AND STATUS....

The only way to demostrate our political dissapointment with the BUSH gang is voting them out!

Pease and the wish of a better whole world helped from USA

Glad Michael's values are in line with Kucinich and therefore mine. BUT, I'm not prepared to sell out. Mike, a few questions:

1. Why is Obama necessarily better if he's on the Council for Foreign Relations and retains Zbigenew Brezhinski as a foreign policy adviser? Why does his wife retain her lucrative board seat on a huge supplier to Walmart?

2. Why is Edwards necessarily better if he's a former attendee (like Hillary) of the annual Bilderberger meeting? Aren't they about forcibly limiting the number of people who can live on Earth? Why is the simple po'boy from Carolina a man of the people if he has the most expensive home in his county?

3. Why is Al Gore necessarily better if he has profited immense sums of money from private prisons (America's favorite pastime)?

???

Michael, you rock. Thank you for reminding us that we cannot afford to give up, take anything for granted, or discount any candidate. Edwards is starting to sound better and better after stating he would get our troops out of Iraq within a year. His reasons are sound and I would support him for that and his single-payer health care plan.

Thanks for keeping it real!
Elizabeth Madrigal

geraldharringtonIII January 2nd, 2008 2:12 pm

"Why do we look towards the democratic party for change? They aren't going to change a thing. It's bipartisan consensus.

Who is ron paul?"

I will take the bait on your question and give you a link to a speech Ron Paul gave in New Hampshire a few weeks ago on Executive Powers:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7493899900883927358&loc=interstitialskip

Michael, I appreciate your willingness to speak your truth as you see it. That is what our blessed country is all about. Here's mine. Please forgive me if it seems off topic.

Focusing on who to elect is all fine and good, but unless we diligently focus on how we spend our MONEY, paying attention to where its allocated and what it's being spent on, what difference does it make? We must speak up, and hold all our leaders, both Presidential & Congressional, accountable.

We can no longer afford to let the media give us the numbers like in a shell game.

Check it out: Based on the news articles I've collected during the past few weeks, we are now spending 97% of our entire federal budget on the military!

Since the news media just gives little blurbs of info over time, its hard to notice what the numbers actually mean… so today out of genuine curiousity, I decided to actually add them up and calculate the percentages like it's done in a successful business.

Where are we going to be spending our tax dollars in the next 12 months?

Numbers don't lie… let's do the math:

"WASHINGTON, Dec 20,(Yahoo News Update) The Senate just passed a bill that will be signed by the President agreeing to spend $556 BILLION dollars for the total federal budget in 2008."

"WASHINGTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a $556 billion bill to fund most of the federal government through September 2008 plus another 70billion for 2008 war budget in Iraq & Afghanistan" (note: another 70Billion is 12.6% of the budget! Do the math: EIGHTY-FIVE PLUS TWELVE IS NINETY -SEVEN PERCENT)

"WASHINGTON , Nov 8 (Xinhua) The US House of Representatives has approved $471 billion in defense spending for 2008, a 9.5 percent increase over last year. (that's 85% of the budget!! EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT!!)"
-------------------------------

$ 556,000,000,000.00 <<Total 2008 Federal Budget
$ 471,000,000,000.00 <<2008 Military Budget = 84.71223%
$ 70,000,000,000.00 <<2008 Iraq/AfghanistanWar=12.58993% 85%+13%=97.30216%
$ 17,000,000.00 <<2008 OSHA Budget = 0.00306%--this one "little" department in the Federal Government only spends three-thousandths of a percent of the total budget!!

so that leaves:
$ 14,983,000,000.00 <<<Balance Left = 2.69478%
---------------------------------------
If these are real numbers, (and I let Excel do the math) that only leaves 2.7 percent of our entire federal budget (FIFTEEN BILLION DOLLARS) to run the ENTIRE REST of the United States!!!

TWO (CALL IT THREE) PERCENT!!

And we can't afford national healthcare for our citizens? Let alone our children??

These numbers are way out of balance.

Think about it.

This is OUR money! My tax dollars and your tax dollars. If you knew that for every dollar that you pay in federal taxes, that 97 cents of it is going directly to military spending, would you be able to sleep at night?

97% - WOW!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/

"On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil — including the root of global warming — is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace."

Presidents take orders. If they don't, they can be disposed. Where is Kennedy? Remember that speech about the covert means of the international ruling cartels? And the day in Texas that followed?

The elections only elect 'order takers' with secret drama school credentials. Politics is a side show to keep the bound and chained distracted while their health, future and sanity are quickly pulled out from under them.

Who of these people (selected candidates) has uttered an impassioned plea to identify the agencies (and power elite) inside and outside the US who conspired to bring about 9/11? Who of them have admitted to foreknowledge (for some of them surely had some including the Clintons).

Discovering the level of ethics of this bunch of 'new' 'pretenders to the throne' is really quite easy... and the litmus test is in hand, 9/11.

liberty, that's right-- you don't see many writers criticizing the Israeli government on Common Dreams.

As usual I agree with Mr moore's general ideas but would like to point out a glaring omission reguarding his analysis of Sen. Obama. This senator appeared on TV and said he wouldn't hesitate to invade Pakistan if he felt they were a threat.Not only is this kind of rhetoric thoughtless it is irresponsible and highly inflammatory towards one of America's only allies in this volatile area.It is frighteningly similar to the kind of Knee jerk re-action to a question that led to the Iraq war. We don't need any more firebrands. We need cool headed negotiators.

GREENERARTTHOU

You have to change the paradigm: Take the insurance companies out of the loop completely - that's where the problem is, has been all along. And if your employer pays for your medical care, believes it is his right to intrude into your medical background, then you are nothing more than a slave. (not you personally) And slaves get really lousy medical care - at the same time as they're being berated and whipped for not being educated enough or not working hard enough. 16 Tons comes to mind - "I owe my soul to the company store!" End the profit motive. Profit is a cost, and most of what you end up paying goes to some sociopathic three-piecer who rakes in hundreds of millions and adds NOTHING to the common wealth. Make medical care a common good, like roads, police, firedudes, power, water and sewage, education etc. Pay taxes directly to the department responsible for distributing the money, as you would for police and firemen. Make government do what it's supposed to. And then supervise like crazy so it does. Take back your rights and power. Everywhere privatization has been introduced has been a failure, except for a few three-piecers and the plantation owners they serve. It doesn't belong most places; it just ends up costing lives. I remember the joke - "Privatize the profits and socialize the losses", from back in the 70's already. This stratagem has been in place since at least that long ago. So while the corporations are squawking about socialized medicine and decrying what they call socialism, they have no qualms about socializing the expenses of their business failures and mortgage debacles, the poor health and safety standards, the environmental atrocities. And they pay less taxes, less utility fees proportionately than the Little Guy does. Back to Hillary - this kind of shell game is her area of expertise. Too bad it took Moore so long to see it. But then, he's young.

Michael Moore is sponsored by Ariel Emmanuel brother of Congressman Rahm Emmanuel who are both the sons of the founder of the Irgun. You all should do a little more research on this man and more importantly who is backing him and thier agenda.

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

24/7 = July 24, 2008. Most of the primaries will have passed. Bush will still be an idiot, outsmarting all the brains in Congress, outraging all the blogs, and killing more Americans and more Muslims. Your phones will be monitored. Your protests will be unseen outside the ring of police. Local media will omit your message. National media will ignore your existence. There will be no hint of impeachment. Gas prices will be killing you. You will be losing your house. You will be sick of it all. Why not just call in sick, or if retired or unemployed, practice your moral sick-out. Don't drive on 24/7. Don't shop on 24/7. Unplug the TV. Meditate. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper or an e-mail to your favorite blogs. Don't use your phone.
Have a quiet day. Screwed by health costs and insurance? Be sure not to make any medical appointments on 24/7. Make no appointments. Stay away from school. Don't go to the beach or the movies. You are sick of it all and want the country to know. July 24, 2008. National Sick-Out Day. Pass it on.

re Daniel David: "The right answer on whom to support will probably be focused for us somewhat tomorrow night when several candidates place very poorly in Iowa caucuses. "

1) Why do we let the corporate media tell us who the viable candidates are?

2) About 5% of registered voters in Iowa participate in these caucuses. How can intelligent United States citizens be swayed by such a small isolated representation (Iowa's population is about 1% of a country of 300,000,000)?

Electoral politics is meaningless.

dmia wrote:
"To redwriteman: Yes, I will oblige you and call you racist. It is unimaginable to me that in the year 2008 we can't hope to think that citizens of this country will vote for someone regardless of the color of their skin."

I don't think it is fair to call redwriteman a racist solely on what he wrote. He did not say that we can't hope that the citizens of this country will vote for someone regardless of the color of their skin. He specifically noted the citizens of the South, where racism is still (obviously) a problem. Simply making note of that reality doesn't make the one noting it a racist.

Though he may actually be, I wouldn't know not knowing him. But the statement he made in and of itself doesn't mean anything as to whether he is or isn't.

Your other point about whites being in the minority soon... maybe not as soon as you might think, and even then the largest minority for some time, with no other group by itself making a majority. Not that it matters, just that I recently took a Demographics class, and that is the reality.....

I would be thrilled if a woman won (just not Hillary - who I used to admire). And I would be thrilled if an African American won (I'd be delighted with Barack Obama). I'd even be happy if a gay man won (as long as he had the integrity to be out and right on the issues).......

And I'd be fine if a white man won (especially one named Kucinich), so long as he's right...

Basically as long as he/she is qualified and the polar opposite of Bush, I'd be pleased.

But even I know there are still race problems with too many Southern voters.. wish it weren't so, but it is....

dmia: Political reality is that right now, there are some southern whites that would vote for a southern white economic progressive, but would not vote for an African-American for president.

I misspoke when I said "southern whites by and large". I should have said that there are enough southern whites that would go for either Edwards or a Republican, but not Obama, to make the difference in most southern states. That particular southern white voting block...meaning those who would vote for a southern white economic progressive but not an African-American....represent the margin of victory that the dems would need to take most of the south.

Are you denying that Edwards won't get more votes in southern states than Obama? It is not racist to do political forcasting using race as one factor.

I do agree with you that the trends in this country will bear you out, and that as people of color become the majority, we will see less and less political advantage being white. But race is still a difference making factor in the south. A dwindling factor to be sure, but this election year it is still relevant.

auspiciousbunny, quit asking everyone else to do your homework for you. Go to the John Edwards website and look under the hood, kick the tires and take it for a test drive. John Edwards doesn't get photo-ops, he has been ignored by the corporate MSM because they don't like what he is saying, just like Kucinich has been shut out. No one can give you assurances that he will do what he says, but you can't know that about the other candidates either. Edwards is saying and doing all the things that show him to be way more progressive than Hillary or Barack.
Now, it's time to start showing him some love as a reward!
Or, do you not want a real progressive to win?
EDWARDS IS THE MAN!

The right answer on whom to support will probably be focused for us somewhat tomorrow night when several candidates place very poorly in Iowa caucuses. Some may drop out then, or after New Hampshire.

Once we get over primary fever and remember that there indeed will be a general election against a Republican,
the choice will become much easier. Vote for your good old status quo of the last 8 years, or vote for the Democrat. It won't be that hard to choose as the months go by.

The ideal situation for the fascists is to suppress the vote. Their minions always come out in full force. Add the idiots that actually buy their crap and they win if there is a low turn out of the disgusted. NOT VOTING IS ABSOLUTE CONSENT.

I saw a bumper sticker: I Didn't Vote For the Son-of-a-Bush

Rather liked that sticker.

Greenuprising I agree:

You said --- if Michael Moore (and John Nichols and Tom Hayden and Ralph Nader) would insist that Kucinich is the only "viable" candidate, i.e., the only one who stands for what most Americans really want out of Washington today, he might indeed be a viable candidate.

True. Michael Moore seems like he is afraid to alienate anyone. Why? I enjoy his movies. But I just don't get it. Mike, people will be alienated anyway in this country the way things are going now.

This whole thing makes me sad. I need real evidence, not people's feelings, about Edwards. Edwards crowd: send along some factual evidence of his track record of successfully fighting big business.

I will stand corrected if someone can come up with the real evidence. Otherwise people, why believe in him just based on his well-planned photo ops?

You don't buy a used car based on the paint job. Ya know what I mean?

Chunga's Revenge, thank you - I agree.

Once upon a time corporations did not rule human consciousness. Now they fear monger over everyone's choices in life. We so brainwashed that we can't live without them that no alternative can surface in our imaginations even.

I don't think we certainly should be passing new laws forcing us to pay "free market" firms, for what we fear might happen in the future. First of all, that this is free market is then a complete joke.

Insurance is the biggest suckers game going. We are so immersed in this crazy culture we don't even both to consider the rational thought of this: If nothing goes wrong with our car, health, house, and the insurance company does absolutely nothing for us for our money, shouldn't we at least a major chunk of our insurance premiums refunded to us?

The only sane solution is to remove corporate greed from healthcare completely. That may be a long shot but we at least should stop acting like little babies who need the government to make it illegal us to not buy insurance.

Why doesn't the government make my dinner for me every night and make me hire an insurance company to feed it to me. I might choke.

To learn how Michael Moore endorsed Ralph Nader in 2000...and then turned on him - and all progressives - in 2004, read the new book, "What Was Ralph Nader Thinking?" (Wroughten Books) available at http://thewomandirector.com

I will vote for the candidate (Dennis Kucinich) that has voted time and time again against Military Invasions, funding Military Occupations, funding huge Military budgets and has been the leader in the fight for Single Payer Healthcare and for the Impeachment of (first) Vice-President Dick Cheney.

As many of said (including Ralph Nader in 2000-banned from the debates) our whole political system is morally bankrupt. John Edwards is falling behind in the race to raise $80 Million, $90 Million, $100 Million , $150 Million just to be in the "first tier" of the Corporate managed horserace called a "democratic election."

I remember in 2004 in the Primary race Edwards' great speeches about the "Two Americas." Where was that in the National Election? As usual Democrats campaign for "the base" (the working class) during the primaries, but in the November national campaign it's always: move to the right to attract the "middle." So we got to hear Kerry and Edwards at the convention talking about "killing the terrorists" while anti-war buttons and signs were confiscated!!!
I'll never forget Hillary, Kerry and Edwards' fierce speeches about the dangers of "Saddam and all his weapons" as they authorized votes for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

In November I'll ofcourse consider Obama and Edwards over any Republican.
If it's Hillary-I'd sooner vote Green Party or for Ron Paul.

To redwriteman: Yes, I will oblige you and call you racist. It is unimaginable to me that in the year 2008 we can't hope to think that citizens of this country will vote for someone regardless of the color of their skin.

The truth is the Barack more closely mirrors the race/color that the United States is becoming. "White" people will be the minority before long. This isn't bad! This is just change. Up until 400 years ago, the predominate race on this continent was not white.

Same thing is happening in Europe. The truth of the matter is that there are just more people of color in the world than snow white Europeans, and we all travel more in the 21st century.

Obama very well represents what America is all about. And I'm not referring to the color of his skin. He is an honest, thinking man. What a change it will be to have such a person in the White House. On the day he is sworn in, the view of the US from the rest of the world will be instantly elevated.

"Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war."

"Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were "enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html

'What I knew before the invasion' by Senator Bob Graham D-Florida
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

"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

Like Kucinich, Obama opposed the Iraq War Resolution from the beginning in October of 2002.

Vote Your Conscience Michael Moore.

coco - check the nader and kucinich threads on your right.

It is a matter of too many threads all at once on about the same topic.

Edwards is the rational choice. He is the most electable progressive we will get. Of course I have misgivings, but not nearly as many misgivings about the other two front runners.

Here it is. Call me racist if you must. Obama's color keeps him from being electable. I believe the south is in sort of a schism. Southern voters, by and large, are ready for an economic progressive, but not an African American progressive.

Hillary has a different problem. She has attended fundraisers put on by the likes of Rupert Murdoch and taken money from the health insurance industry. She is also the MSM's candidate for the sole reason she is beatable. It's hard to find a progressive who can tolerate the thought of her or a swing voter who would consider her.

Edwards is our best bet for progressivism AND electablility....which is why the MSM is trying to marginalize him.

IOWA PREDICTIONS
Edwards will win mainly because he is the 2nd choice for so many who support the lower tier candidates.
Obama will get 2nd narrowly losing out to Edwards.
Hillary will get a disappointing,(for her), 3rd place finish.
The next question is who will Biden, Dodd and Richardson endorse when they bow out before February 5th.

And for all of those out there who believe Iowa has too much influence you must understand that the majority of voters Thursday night have been doing their homework since last summer and we do not believe we are electing the next President but we do believe we are showing the rest of the country and the world where we believe the country should be heading. The rest is up to the other 49 states.

As for me...I'll stand for Obama.

It sure does make you wonder why the corporate shills want to raise a consciousness of a non-existant candidate such as is the glorified Al Gore; I guess it must be so that they can sneak in a scumbag who is camoflaged enough that the evil scumbags won't be recognized as interferring. What losers! It's going to be enjoyable to see that vile scum squirm before they are squished out of existence, literally!

Good for you Michael Moore, you join Ralph Nader, John Mellencamp, Jackson Brown, Bonnie Raitt and a host of other smart progressives who know that -
**** JOHN EDWARDS IS THE MAN! ****

AD

but he did say 'whom'

KEM PATRICK

conspicious by your absence.............

It figures. Neocon "AD" the spelling troll has arrived. At least MM can spell his own name, unlike our insane bushmonkey "decider."

COMarc,

A: Polosi/Ried/Waxman is not working out very well at all for me. I'm torn between the anger of betrayal, and Nader/Moore's semi-endorsement of a guy I really don't trust: Edwards.

All things considered, COmarcs comment jumps out at me as the most relevant so far, so I have repeated what he said below. The way I see it, DK, was a good man, but he is still part of the same corporate fortune 500 machinery as is Edwards. These guys feed at the corporate trough and will defer to it, without any doubt.

What needs to happen immediately Michael Moore is we need a Green ticket with Gore/Nader on it. They will loose of course, but they can drive the issues highlighting the election; the two most important being the hijacking of the government by the Fortune 500 and the runaway carbon death we are all in the middle of. If they make a good showing, maybe the Green party can win in 2012 since about that time Florida will be underwater along with most of the red southern states.

pacplyer

COmar said:
It will go the other way. The candidate, when elected will denounce all the semi-populist talk they used to get elected, then immediately start governing the way Wall Street wants.

I keep hearing this notion. The one that basically says that yes, all the Democrats sound awful. But we should vote for them in the secret belief that they really don't mean it. We are supposed to believe that they've taken hundreds of millions of dollars from corporate backers to get elected, but now that they are in office they are going to screw those people. Even though its exactly those same people they are going to immediately turn to do start funding their re-election campaign.

So this truly has to be the silliest, bottom of the barrel excuse for continuing to vote Democrat that I've ever seen.

Just to test it against recent history. Reid and Pelosi said way before the 2006 elections that impeachment was off the table. Yet apparently many voted Democrat in the hopes of getting impeachment. How's that working out for ya?

"I believe that refusing to vote is a bigger statement than voting for the lesser evil."

Yeah, I'll bet the Republicans shake in their boots at the very idea of progressives all staying home on election day. Why, then they would have gone to all that trouble to fix the election for nothing.

Don't be a chump. It's bad enough when politicians attempt to disenfranchise citizens -- much worse when people decide to disenfranchise themselves. These folks are not going to lose money if you don't vote, so a boycott does nothing but please the wicked.

Michael Moore, you're better than this. You know that it should be "Whom" not "who." You have a better command of the English language than that.

medusa - I almost puked when I read your definition of insurance. Private insurance is the biggest scam going. The main function of insurance companies is to turn a profit, and they do that best by finding ways to raise rates and avoid paying claims, or minimize the claim if they must pay. Even the non profit's like BC/BS pay over inflated salaries to executives and are always putting up new and grander buildings from which to serve you better.

Anyway I digress. I liked Michaels article. I am with him I think Edwards is looking ok about now, he is certainly better than Billary and Obummer. I don't really understand why Richardson can't get any traction though, he certainly has the best overall credentials. But I have not given up on Kucinich yet, even if he has begun to give up on himself.

I use 13 watt light bulbs that give more light than than 60 watt light bulbs. How can that be bad? Sure it takes a few seconds for them to graduate to that level, but it usually takes me that long to sit down and place my coffee and warm up my computer, unless I'm using the one with Ubuntu. Saving energy is a good thing.

Re: FCC - the CTRC is not perfect either. Though, if a politician swears, we are allowed to hear them doing so.

RE: his was supposed to be a 'serious' article, right?

Semi serious. Michael Moore basically said, through all the sweet sarcasm that he is not ready to throw his support to Edwards - yet. However, after his first choice is out of the race that is where it is going to go.

Michael Moore also said that he is willing to vote for Obama and Clinton but only if given no other choice. Though, since he can't rule them out completely, he can't diss them too harshly without looking like a hypocrite if he is put in a position of having to vote for them.

RE: - 7 Encourage fair trade over free trade and stop America's participation in NAFTA, CAFTA, WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION, WORLD BANK, IMF, etc.

Bill Blaikie gave the best speeches as to the distinctions between Free Trade and Fair Trade - and Peter Julian has taken over from Bill Blaikie.

The International Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Act (IPPHRA)

http://www.peterjulian.ca/page/565

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-492, An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that work on this bill was undertaken by Nick Milanovic, who is an adjunct professor of law at Carleton University, and Mark Rowlinson, counsel for the United Steel Workers. This bill has been endorsed by the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers.

Based on the alien tort claims act in the United States, which as the House knows has been a fundamental shift in practice, this bill would allow individuals who have been violated by human rights violations to sue companies and individuals through the American courts. Essentially what the bill would do is promote and protect human rights by allowing that same privilege through the Canadian courts.

We cannot have respect for human rights by asking politely. There is a need for consequences when there are violations of human rights. There is a need for penalties when there are violations of human rights.

The bill does exactly that. It sets penalties. It allows for process for victims so that individuals who are victims of human rights violations have effectively a legislative vehicle and a judicial vehicle to use.

RE: Corporate money in politics is a major, if not the major, issue.

RuthK - I need no convincing of that (good issue to bring up BTW)! This is a summary of the Manitoba law designed to limit the influence of corporate money in politics:

http://misc-iecm.mcgill.ca/socdem/barret.htm

The Conservatives are doing better now but the first election after the law came into effect, instead of those fancy lawn signs with the candidate's picture on it, they were reduced to printing their pamphlets off of their home computer!

Keeping your link for when The Karlheinz Schreiber story starts up again.

RE: Sorry Michael, but tell me WHY I should vote this time around???

Because the Republicans don't want you to. Simple as that. I could go into the throwing of voting registration forms into the garbage, the number of people knocked off the voting lists and the crooked voting machines - they are all there just in case enough of us can't be dissuaded from voting.

Think of it, if they don't want us to do something this badly - what is in it for them?

RE: They are all eating out of the same trough, they are all in bed with corporate greed masters

According to RuthK's link, Edwards isn't doing that badly if we can't have Kucinich. Part of Kucinich running was to get his ideas out there and more Americans heard them and liked them. Tommy Douglas did not care which politicians implemented his ideas - only that they got implemented. Kucinich being able to speak in this year's debate made his ideas a bit more mainstream than last time - and more people heard them than ever did before. Tsk Tsk no one appreciates small victories any more.

Why is the right trying to convince us that Ron Paul is the answer? He sounds a bit like an American David Orchard to me.

I believe that refusing to vote is a bigger statement than voting for the lesser evil.

It drives the ruling class crazy that so many Americans refuse to vote. Right there, you should know it's the best choice. Voting legitimizes the system.

The reasons posters here give for voting are pretty pathetic. Especially voting so you have the right to complain. Or maybe so you can put a "don't blame me, I voted for" sticker on your car.

Medusa, there is a big difference between single payer government administered health care and FORCED payments to a for-profit insurance company.

You point out yourself that the insurance companies make money by refusing to pay claims. And that the profit system doesn't work.

So how do you conclude that forcing more people to pay insurance companies will solve the problem? That's illogical.

Medusa, my first "problem" with buying insurance is they cancel me if I get sick. My second is they decide what sickness they'll pay for and what sickness they won't. My third, and this will probably sound really weird, I don't really think I deserve anything that others lack. The reason I have relatively decent insurance now isn't that I deserve it or have earned it, and the reason my brother and his wife have crappy insurance and drive too far for doctors also doesn't mean they didn't earn better insurance, or lacked in hard work or initiative. Another problem is insurance costs too damned much, and no fat cat deserves to sit on his rear and get absurdly rich for managing a system that is no longer designed or meant to actually take care of people when they're ill. Where's the "insurance" part? Seems like all that's insured is the fact that get sick enough, or have been sick in the past, and insurance companies will reward themselves for screwing you and dumping you when you need them most.

Smart and funny article Michael. You got the shills here jumping like water on a hot frying pan. I would bet that the only ones who appear worried about your endorsing Edwards are those that have not seen your movies, read your books and articles, or heard your speeches. Conservatives of both parties aren't going to vote for Edwards anyway now that they're on top, getting filthy richer, jailing pot smokers and killing brown people for Jesus.

Michael, you lost me, after a great article, with the ridiculous comments about compact florescent bulbs. You, of all people, should not fall into the American mindset of trivial preferences taking priority over the planet. How on earth are florescent bulbs irritating? We have them in every light in our house. We have had for over 5 years. Not one has ever burned out. We are not jumpy and don't feel like we "never left work", but we'd use them even if we did. The weird consumer attitude that nothing is as important to priortize as little preferences is what gets Americans into situations that are poised to crash and burn. Come on, Mike! You don't get to grouse about everything you (justifiably) grouse about and then claim that you have the right to "prefer" energy wasting bulbs.

Hey! What's with pushing just the big three and making fun of one of our cities? I'll be supporting Richardson tomorrow night.

BLUETICKET

You can put away the supercilious tone - I'm aware of the problems with the American health-non-insurance system. I was addressing only the issue of compulsory payment.

As a citizen of a country where health services are freely available thanks to compulsory payment in a single-payer government administered system, I know that I am better off for paying my little share. I do not lose my insurance when I get laid off, fired, retired, whatever. Home care is covered as part of the deal. I can pick my own doctor, my own pharmacy - heck, I can get free physiotherapy on demand without a prescription. I was shocked - back in 1990, when I learned from one of your fellow Americans that his health care was tied to his employment, that he had to choose from a list of doctors and pharmacists approved by his boss - it was already blatantly corrupt then. The big kicker is that these non-insurance companies spend a fortune finding ways to reject claims, and then at the worst possible time. It's amazing to me that decent people could do this kind of work at all.

Your country's problem is bigger than the health insurance structure - it is the lack of regulation, of governance of the rules of a decent relationship between transactional partners. At every level. The health non-insurance is only a symptom of a wider corruption.

So - put your snot back where you found it.

I've been an Obama man so far; under no circumstances could I vote for Hillary unless her opponent is one of the weird Republicans now contending. And if she really believed Bush's charges against Iraq in 2002, she would make a dangerously unreliable President. But, like Michael, I really like John Edward's tough talk about corporations, and I would love to have him in the White House to take them on. They, with the servile support of Congress, would eventually whip him, but maybe in the process some of their unholy power would erode.

A couple years ago 1998 Nobel laureate José Saramago wrte a novel whose English title is Essay on Lucidity--in which almost everybody voted No Vote in an election.

Read it.

If we want to dismantle American Fascism we cannot become too ideological. We must vote for the candidate that speaks enough of our language and who shows evidence that he can beat the Repugs. The polls show that Edwards is that person. No I don't trust him either. He voted for the war, for the patriot act, and against the ratification of the International Criminal Court. One has to question his flawed judgment, and one will have to hold one's nose in silent prayer when voting for him. At this juncture he does appear to be the most electable. He is also smart enough to drum up support for a solid Democratic majority in the Congress. As bad as this scenario sounds we must never forget the impact of intervening variables. I anticipate a collapse of sorts in the near future that is sobering enough to force the new President and Congress to fly straight. So the question really boils down to who do you want leading the country in the worst of times. If the answer is a Democrat then Edwards appears to be the choice. Divided government during a crisis is not a rational choice. I too have often threatened either not to vote or to waste my vote on a third party as an object lesson to the Dems. I have changed my mind because I believe the crisis is upon us and we must make the hard choice in spite of the dispirited comments read here. So hang in there, make the tough choice, and ride out the storm. Anything less is a death wish.

Jmcneil is dead wrong. Silence (i.e. not voting) gives consent.

Medusa asks what's wrong with buying insurance. Does anybody have the patience to tell her?

PEACE CANDIDATE, CELEBRITY - what is your problem with buying insurance? You have it on your car, your life, your business, and your house. In fact, when something goes badly for you, that's the first place you look. Health insurance - think of it as a way of pre-paying your medical expenses, and if done right, keeping the cost down by sharing the total. Do you enjoy your high dentist and ophthalmologist bills? (nothing against either profession) - oh - you probably haven't seen either one for ages (the reason I use those two as examples) because you haven't managed to save up a safety cushion for those. Sometimes, short-sighted fools need to be FORCED to act sensibly.

MICHAEL - love you to pieces, but you must take the blinders off - Hillary is part of that 27-year-old Repug Dynasty and will always capitulate to and serve the big corporations. She can fool you because she's the brainiest thing out there, but there are bad cracks in her veneer of interst in her fellow humans.

If anyone votes in the U.S. election then they are tacitly participating in, and aiding and abetting, all of the crimes perpetrated by the U.S. corporate government.

Not voting in a rigged election is more of a statement and has more value than placidly condoning genocide, mass murder and grand larceny on a national and internacional scale.

Anyone who votes in a U.S. election, so long as that evil scum is in power, is an associate of that evil regime, whether that association is recognized by the voter, or not.

Ron Paul or Edwards, i dont mind the Kooch as VP

Oh, Frank! You need to do a little more reading about your beloved Ron Paul. He has brought an incredible amount of pork back to his district. He is a free market worshiper. What has free market done for health care? He admits that he is a follower of the fiction writer, Ayn Rand. Libertarianism is about as workable in reality as communism on the other end ofthe spectrum!

Honestly I can't see how Edwards is much better than Obama at all. Has he changed his healthcare stance? Democracy Now reported that all three "major" candidates put forth insurance-based healthcare proposals, with Clinton and Edwards calling for a law mandating we pay insurance companies for coverage. Obama later started backing out on the mandate part of the plan.

Does anyone have more up to date info on Edwards where he has committed to a single payer non-insurance based plan? I wish Michael Moore would have included more details and specifics about this, because I'm skeptical. I just don't think this has happened. If it has will someone fill me in please. Maybe I missed it.

Edwards makes me suspicious. He talk pretty. So did my Democratic Senators in Jersey, who ran on aggressive ant-Bush campiagns in the last election then about faced and voted for Bush policy when in office.

If Edwards is going to "take on big business" on behalf of the little folks, then where is his real, concrete, nuts and bolts plan? That is what I want to know. Anyone with a decent speechwriter can come up with chummy rousing-sounding, for-the-fellow-man populist stuff to say. He will need more than words. That is a tall order and will take determination and muscle and a track record of accomplishment fighting big business (dare I say the N word, but Nader has this in heaps above Edwards, electability not withstanding.)

If he is going to take on BB, where is he getting lots of his dough from and who will be expecting a payback? Why wasn't he taking on big business loudly and vocally the last time around?