Paul Street did kindly reply to my question of why he thinks Obama would not give dennis his Dept of Peace:

"Jim:

I do not claim to be clairvoyant - honestly, but I have consulted most of B.O.'s foreign policy speeches and the foreign policy chapter of his 2006 book and watched him closely for the last two years and I repeat: "No chance." Ok?

I mean, really....

Paul Street"

perhaps not entirely on topic, but we still need to remember the manipulation of the voting machines. who we vote for won't matter if the votes are not counted correctly. i'm worried that the nation will vote for obama and we'll end up with huckabee in the "white" house.

lillulu - Yes! - I'd really like to see an article here on Common Dreams examining all the hawkish comments that Obama has made throughout this campaign -- not just hawkish comments even, but commments that indicate his view of American Triumphant Exceptionalism is still ready and rarin to go.

For PJD. Disregarding the rest of your message for now, I would like you to tell my why longwall mining turns the earth's surface to swampland. It doesn't do it anywhere else.

As a matter of fact, what do you think longwall mining is?

Oh-Bomb-Ah said he'd have had Iraq bombed even if he knew they had NO weapons of mass destruction. He loves war and has his sights set on Iran and Pakistan. Joe Lieberman was his mentor. What does THAT tell you?!

John Edwards is the most electable Democrat and will beat any Republican.

Dick Cheney gets all sorts of cracks about his appearance in these posts.
If anyone has a gripe it should be with the editors who pick these hilarious pictures.
Not us for having fun with them.

I will defend my right to laugh at these clowns.

That said it's bad form too…

RE: - (Linda McQuaig / Kucinich) - Kucinich says that he raised the issue within the Democratic caucus a number of times last spring, when Democrats were drafting legislation that would cut off funding for the war unless certain benchmarks of progress were met. One of those benchmarks – originally proposed by the White House – was passage of the proposed oil law. Kucinich said that when he objected, arguing that the oil law amounted to an attempt to gain control of Iraqi oil, "I was shouted down several times, literally, by leading Democrats… There was broad denial that such a thing could be happening….I was attacked by some of the leaders for even raising the issue." Ignoring Kucinich's objections, the Democratic-controlled Congress ended up passing the bill, with the oil law as a benchmark.

Of course the Oil Law is about taking control over Iraqi oil out of the hands of Iraqis! That it would be the cornerstone of this funding agreement is shocking, though. The text of this proposed Oil Law is on line. The link for it works for "Iraq Oil Law" but not "Iraq Oil Law 2"

Iraq Oil Law (click lavender for interview - and look beneath it for "LINKS:"):

http://www.cbc.ca/onthemap/fullpage.php?id=49

Iraq Oil Law 2

http://www.cbc.ca/onthemap/fullpage.php?id=59

RE: - Linda McQuaig provides further insight into DK's maginalization by his own party

Linda McQuaig is the author of "The Cult of Impotence"

Caelidh ~

Your assertion that the Iowa results, and the largely negative reception that Hillary is getting here at CD being a sexist reaction is puzzling to me.

Does anyone view Hillary as having any secondary female sexual characteristics at all? Frankly, I don't see her as a "woman" per se, and if you negate the clothing and accessories, I lose even the vague notion she's a woman!

How could her Iowa rout be considered sexist??

dear hillary , when you were the first lady , i did notice that you seemed to fight hard for us to get national healthcare , you got crucified . i don't know , but something tells me , you were gonna be on our side .last week , that sneaky george bush gave your financial backers , what they had wanted from you . that was the ace they were holding back under their long sleeve.i know,nothing is what it seems and i could be missing the mark , but i think the angry mob doth protest too much.

Karlof1 (btw, what's with the moniker? - you a fan of Boris?)

No I admit I didn't understand your comment on hope etc. I too like Dennis though I think there are LOTS of right-minded people who also stand no chance of being POTUS. The rest of us have to find some other way to help make a difference. I don't understand what Dennis thinks he's doing - like Ralph Nader. Just being in the spotlight (a little) is a kind of pulpit I supppose. I'm not faulting him - just don't get it. I applaud his work in Congress.

If Obama goes all the way then I guess I'll just have to HOPE that it's also not the 90's redux - with compromise and caving-in to Republicans being the order of the day.

Commonreader January 4th, 2008 9:58 am
"Obama=Change? Don't think so.

"Never mind that Obama has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and "other Wall Street Democrats" to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party (David Sirota, "Mr. Obama Goes to Washington," the Nation, June 26).

Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont.

Or that Obama has supported other "mainstream Democrats" fighting antiwar progressives in primary races (see Alexander Cockburn, "Obama's Game," the Nation, April 24, 2006).

Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito."

from The Obama Illusion, Z Magazine,by Paul Street February 2007"

Let's not forget that he also signed on to the "Bankruptcy Reform Bill" which essentially was designed to protect the interests of "deregulated" Central Bankers and the inevitable outcome of the fraudulent subprime scam they perpetrated upon the people of the U.S. and then with the help of Wall Street, sold bogus CDOs to the entire global investment community.

At this stage of the game, I'm hoping that Kucinich knows something more positive about Obama than the rest of us.

Speaking of the Fed Cartel, check out this article:
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/deepcaster/2008/0104.html

bigjoe31--You seem to think I'm a fan of Clinton and Obama. You obviously haven't read many of my comments.

safiyyah--Actually, folks here want Kucinich first, Edwards second, Gravel third, and Obama fourth. Occasionally, a Clintonite leaves a comment. (Observations based on reading as many of the comments as possible over the past several months.) You've been here just as long and have had the opportunity to read too; so, it's your observation that tries to twist the history of readers' commentary that's "pathetic."

ike kay--It isn't the media that's "uninformed." They are quite busilly performing their "uninforming" the public mission.

Very interesting comments. The one above reflects what some people believe. There may be some thoughts that do not move unlike sheep toward the edge. However, change is necessary, Obama needs to recognize that he must apply substance to the list of things he would like to do. We want to know how he will do them, it is not enough just to say they are hard, as did JFK.

But the true evil of this or any other election is the uninformed media who has the nerve to eliminate candidates. Those who do that should have their licenses at the FCC revoked. It is not their right to approve candidates that is solely the right of the American people and no one else! The media should get back to where they are supposed to be, FAIR AND BALANCED REPORTING . . .REPORT ONLY!!

As usual few are able to see the stampede of the sheep. I support the change that Obama represents! He is intelligent and wants America once again to be looked upon as a great nation that it could be. However, saying that is the discovery that no one could have been as bad as the Bush bunch!

A flight from entrenched American politics is necessary. . .it has ruined this country and made greed the one value of importance. The young people must once again embrace hope since the Hillary group have virtually destroyed America with its policies and exclusive power club. No change is necessary and the mistakes that Obama may make can not be greater than those of the past eight years. It is necessary to give him a democratic congress.

I would support Ron Paul has his vice president if he really wanted to bind up the nations wounds. Ron Paul and Kucinich both speak the truth! I suggest this as a means of having the American government become a government of unity and of purpose, as he speaks about wanting to reach out to all states!

First, the liberals of CD came out pushing for Edwards and now it is for BO. In the end it will be for Hillary. Isn't that very pathetic?

Think if we all put attention to commenting about out how undemocratic this whole charade of primary voting for the DP and RP actually is. In comparison, allowing 2 senators per state is a model of democracy even. Instead of better commentary, it's like we have been captured into cheering for our favorite cheerleaders and hoping that the 'prettiest' appearing to each of us individually will 'win'. Yuck!

I was never happy with the difference between the "hope" of Bill Clinton and what we ended up getting. So what's to be excited about now? Did you see how Bill's vacuous message of hope withered and died in front of the big bad Republican fear machine that crushed the health care initiative, and the loss of Congress, and the cave-in on all matters of importance. Keep your hope - give me somethin' I can count on.

OK - so its peace, love, Kumbaya and "framing" - yawn.

Going to listen to a songs which remind me of Hillary "I see imaginary people" Clinton

Angie Baby by Helen Reddy
Just My Imaginations by the Temptations
The Great Pretender - by The Platters

In a word Michael John Hamdani

So bigjoe31, did you watch that video or at least read the transcript? Do you see the connection between it and the framing of Obama's books? Did anyone else?

Linda McQuaig provides further insight into DK's maginalization by his own party as a part of a larger story about Big Oil's plans for Iraq, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=14652 This story provides one of the most outstanding reasons to vote for DK.

I keep hearing, "We need to nominate a candidate that can win." Assume that candidate is Hillary. What would be the substantive difference between Hillary and a moderate Republican? Not much. I'm not following that flawed logic because if we follow it to its conclusion it means we back any candidate (no matter how bad) as long as they are not wearing the Republican label.

I keep hearing scare tactics about not allowing a Republican to occupy the White House but what have the Democrats done? Their leaders have said "impeachment is off the table". Which means that if Bush has broken the law (as I believe he has) and the Congress refuses to begin impeachment proceedings then they are co-conspirators.

I keep hearing about the great big difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. To me they are both the same party of big business. We have the so-called "left wing" in the Democrats and the more conservative right-wing Republicans. Two wings, one party. A leading figure in the Democratic party (Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Lieberman 2000) is even endorsing if not campaigning for McCain. How's that for bipartisanship!

We need to unite under new leaders in new parties. We need at least a third party. Nader said it all: "the evil of two lessers." Keep putting your hopes in Democrats and they will keep disappointing.

Just a gentle reminder that our State and Local politics are now central to how we choose to live. The Feds have been snatched from our grasp and I believe that the Feds must first fall under the weight of their own corruption before they can be remade in a Constitutional Convention. The fighting spirit of Edwards or the healing spirit of Obama may have some positive influence and should be applied. Financial collapse will be the grease of federal change. The modest numbers of thoughtful awakened citizens will have it's most profound effects at the local level if it becomes organized locally. Change will occur from the bottom up in a decentralized way that is consistent with change dynamics.

Why can't Obama win in November purvis? Really, why not?

And karlof1, (you little monster,) what is Obama's message today? It just comes across as peace, love and Kumbaya to me.

AD, "sorcerer" is gender neutral - you are thinking warlock. At least you didn't call Clinton what Chris Hill called Linda McQuaig - not that it didn't cross your mind.

Speaking of those who say nasty things about Linda McQuaig - did you hear that Conrad Black now wants to be an American!

RE: - Would you call a male candidate UGLY in an attempt to criticise him?

No, doing so would make it sound as if that candidate said something about me which was true and I had no counter-argument.

I would call David Emerson a political whore for crossing the floor some time between election night and Harper swearing in his first cabinet. That is the only time the "w" word is ever used is in politics.

RE: - Barak Obama has been a national figure for about fifteen minutes and many think him ready to lead the nation

Let's see if he holds his own tonight. BTW - how has he done on the other debates?

RE: They also apply here in the UK, where "New Labour" could well be accused of being "Conservative lite".

Or the Liberals with Paul Martin as Finance Minister then Prime Minister.

BTW - how does Gordon Brown compare to Tony Blair? Any difference? I think that when Blair first came to office, certain Canadian politicians did not realise that Blair's "third way" was so far to the right - it did not automatically sound that way.

RE: - I would hope that a truly educated electorate would seek a candidate both qualified to be a President and dedicated to those principles and issues that motivate progressive voters.

How are your Liberal-Democrats doing? It is a different system - they can actually accomplish something during a minority government - so let's give them one!

RE: - Imagine if Hillary and Obama weren't running.

Nothing to live or die for
Above us only sky ...

I would prefer if Hillary "I see imaginary people" Clinton wasn't running - and not just because she is right wing. But if it is her against Huckabee!

Neither Clinton nor Obama has any chance of winning the national election and that is why they have been relentlessly promoted by the MSM. Neither one of them has any program except the meaningless chanting of "change" and remember, this is a much more racist, sexist country than liberals would like to believe.

Imagine if Hillary and Obama weren't running. We'd be writing instead about whether Edwards, Gravel or Kucinich won. In a sense, Hillary's presence has been a godsend to the Republicans. It's tugged the whole debate within the Democrats to the "right" (whatever that term means).

I have nothing against Obama. If he is the candidate I will vote for him. Because it is either Democratic or nothing. I will not under any circumstances vote Republican. I just don't think he can win a general election. Let's face it we live in a very racist nation. The nut cases will start coming out of the woodwork if he gets the nomination. I think what's more important for Democrats is to nominate someone who has a possibility of winning. It's imperative that we get this bunch out of office period. Edwards is the only one that I can see who might have a chance with someone like Richardson, Biden or Dodd as VP! He is who I will vote for when our caucus starts the middle of this month.

Democracy needs an involved citizenry in order to avoid becoming disfunctional, a citizenry educated in the issues and one that avoids choosing office holders based upon a cult of personality, a whim or a fantasy vision of what is unreality made real by wishes and hopes.

Barak Obama has been a national figure for about fifteen minutes and many think him ready to lead the nation and make important decisions for the whole world. Perhaps he is such but, based upon his slim voting record in the legislature, and especially noting the times he has ducked controversial votes, are we seeking change only for the sake of change?

I would hope that a truly educated electorate would seek a candidate both qualified to be a President and dedicated to those principles and issues that motivate progressive voters. What I see here, and everywhere frankly, are people who jump on a bandwagon prior to doing any of the hard work necesary to important decisions. Isnt that what got us into this mess in the first place?

"While I don't like Hillary either primarily due to her corporate same ol Republican Lite politics.. I REALLY think that stooping and calling her ugly and a "witch" is bad form."

No question about this. It is her Republican Lite credentials that make her ugly, and that would be enough to turn off the Democratic base.

and to follow up ....

THIS ELECTION.. it is truly sexist. THis is the first time in US history that we have had a viable female candidate running for political office. IT is sad that the candidate is not who we would want.. but please don't stoop to the Right's tactics and use her looks to insult her.

You know and I know that the RIght and the pundits have been Hillary Bashing for YEARS!!! You turn on Rush or Hannity and it is Hillary Bash radio 24/7..

When we do it.. we fall into their trap.

let us rise up and be more mature than the right is?

THere are SERIOUS issues on the table.. and SERIOUS reasons why Hillary should not be president. Not the same ones that the RIGHT thinks... (their fear about "Hillarycare" for instance).

But about her links to the Corporatocracy.. that needs to change. She is obviously NOT the candidate....

She is merely the first step to getting a viable female candidate...Folks will get used to seeing a woman running and hopefully in 2012.. someone will be brave enough to do it...

But there are so many important issues.. we don't need to fall into the trap of lame insults.

In reference to AD's comment on witches and sorcerers...

Uh... both MALEs and FEMALES are witches. I don't know where you are getting your information about Witchcraft, but men do not refer to themselves as "Sorcerers". That is in the movies. Men also do NOT refer to themselves as "Warlocks". That is also from the movies.

Just wanted to correct you there.
Thanks

Okay... While I don't like Hillary either primarily due to her corporate same ol Republican Lite politics.. I REALLY think that stooping and calling her ugly and a "witch" is bad form.

THat is what the Republicans have been doing. It is bordering on sexist. Would you call a male candidate UGLY in an attempt to criticise him? I know that has been done. (think of the insults to Kucinich about him being short).

But If you are going to criticize Hillary.. do it based on her politics NOT her looks. It sets us back to the stone age. I am sick of politics that focuses on "Image" rather than character and honesty!

There was a good BIll Moyers on this very subject and how disgusting the "Right" has been in insulting Hillary and using all sorts of debasing sexual bordering on pornographic, language to insult her.

Let us not be them.

Peace
Namaste

Either John Edwards or Barak Obama is better than Hiliary Rodham Klanton, emphasis on the Klan as her husband OK'd execution of a retarded black kid right before the 1992 election. I said "wicked witch of the NRA, KKK, and others. . ." and that's not the least bit sexist. Get Real! If the candidate had been a man, and somebody had referred to him as being a sorcerer for same groups, it would also not have been sexist. The word starting with a "b" is sexist, and I didn't use it. Lighten damn up! This kind of silliness is what gives the right so many damn opportunities.

A witch happens to be female, and a sorcerer happens to male.

As for HRC, she has 50% negatives before the GOP even goes after her. She doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. She has far a away the highest negatives.

"Hope" was a mantra from Clinton/Gore 1992, specifically Hope is a small town in Arkansas ...http://www.4president.us/tv/1992/clinton1992hope.htm

Compare that ad's message with what Obama's delivering today!

O.K. folks lets point out a couple things about Obama:
1)He is not from a rich family. His Dad may have been higher up in Kenyan society but was largely dysfunctional. His Mom did the best she could raising kids alone or in Indonesia on the edge of a poverty stricken neigborhood.
2)He spent his early career empowering poor black communities.
3)He has a four stage plan to have the U.S. disengaged from Iraq within one year.
4)Got Obama questions? read his books! I feel he does not really have anthing to hide.Nor is he perfect but who is? I bet he would at least include all sides in a policy decision rather than the exclusionary process of the past 7 years!

Maybe some of us liberals just have too much of the victim mentality after all this Bushit. Lets get real America!

Hi Drift--Thanks for the honesty of your reply. I grew up surrounded by a cult of personality: JFK's and then RFK's (I was 8 in '63 and 12 in '68 when they were murdered), and spent quite some time not too long ago learning about who they really were and the actual policies they supported. In following politicos, I look at behavior and compare it to rhetoric to try and establish veracity. I, too, would like an explanation as to why Obama not Edwards, but as a student of electoral politics and engaged voter since 1974, his instructions to his Iowa folks didn't strike me as odd considering I knew he was challenging in Texas and working hard elsewhere. Given the way he was treated by DNC people in Iowa, helping to derail their prefered candidate--Killery--would be enough motivation for me, so why not DK? Did DK change any of his positions? No. I think too many have had knee-jerk reactions because everyone's on edge because the stakes really are high.

Given the gravity of the problems we face, BAU cannot continue and the beginnings of a new paradigm must be established. This means that Clinton and the DLC must be neutralized as much as possible--ABC, Anyone But Clinton.

I would have preferred Edwards as numero uno, but it has only just begun. I hope Obama and Edwards seize the initiative and leave Hillary way behind.

Now don't get me wrong, I think Edwards and Obama are both lying crooks as virtually all politicians are. The thing is, they may just be a little less crooked than the corporatist Clinton. Clinton comes from the establishment; her equivocation and double-speak reveal her as a candidate who doesn't take a strong stand on ANY issue, unlike the others. She doesn't even regret voting for the war, but merely criticizes the wars "execution". At least Edwards claims he made a mistake.

Considering that Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in American history, in the very least, serious candidates of both parties(especially the democrats), should be taking a very strong stand against almost everything Bush represents. H. Clinton's vacillating "attacks" on Bush are disturbing; in other words, she may be too similar to him.

I dunno - this new mantra of "hope" and "change" strikes me as possibly vacuous and slightly sad.

Where's da beef?

Shergald, what you say about Hilary's "Republican lite" politics are so true. They also apply here in the UK, where "New Labour" could well be accused of being "Conservative lite". I believe that this is happening all over the West, because of the religion of Capitalism (Monetarism?, Thatcherism). This desease is endemic, and has spread through our politics like a plague. No one who gains power is immune from it. The people we elect, are very often from the elite (ruling?) class, and have nothing in common with Joe Public. In the UK, most of our top politicians are lawyers, and have ties to the world of commerce.
I hope that there is change in the US, but I have no idea who you should vote for in order that significant change takes place. All three major Democrats are backed by big business, so they already have a debt to pay, way before they have seen the Oval office.

drift

Maybe Kucinich doesn't see Edwards and Obama as Edwards and Obama but as not-Clinton I and not-Clinton II. If so, it is which one he thinks has the best chance of beating Clinton.

I didn't say Clinton. I said Obama, who, while less noisome than Hillary, still is a long, long way from earning the title progressive.

Drift, Kucinich did not back Clinton. Kucinich would never back Clinton.

Maybe it was about the best way not to back Clinton rather than about Obama or Edwards. Who knows!

Lets see how they do tomorrow on WDAZ - er - ABC. As soon as I turn it on, the little one is going to go wii wii in his room.

I have a question based on the Aljazeera candidate profiles. By "contractors" do they mean "Blackwater?"

Dennis Kucinich - Democrat

A previous candidate in the 2004 Democratic presidential race, Ohio congressman Kucinich is regarded by many as one of the most traditionally liberal candidates in the campaign.

With a campaign slogan of "strength through peace", he is the only Democratic candidate to have voted against the war in Iraq and has continued to call for not only US troop withdrawal but a removal of all US contractors from the country.

He also proposes a two-state solution to end the Middle East conflict, calling for an end to Israeli settlement expansion and for both sides to hold direct negotiations over Jerusalem's final status.

karlof,

Just so you know, I was VERY active for Dennis in 03 and 04. I canvassed, phone banked, and posted signs out of the Portsmouth, NH office. I had the great pleasure of being able to ask direct questions to him at house parties and other events. I felt a genuine affection for the man personally I've never felt for a politician.

And yet... this time around I've reminded myself that politics shouldn't be about a cult of personality, and I've frankly felt a real sense of reservation about investing my energies in a campaign that's shaping up to get even lower results than 04.

Edwards has been steadily tracking more progressive over the months, and his message has been getting sharper. I'm excited that tough talk about corporate greed and poverty has been getting play in the MSM. And in the end, it's policy change I'm hungry for, and I'd really, really like to be part of a campaign that stands for that AND has a fighting chance of actually getting into power.

So if that makes me a weak DK supporter, I stand guilty as charged. I remain a fan, though disappointed and bewildered at his decision to back Obama. I don't accept the analysis above that he did so because he is somehow in competition with him over the progressive vote. If he really wants the progressive agenda pushed and adopted, then that should be his 1st priority, not the horse race. He backed Edwards in 04 in Iowa, and it made sense to me then. Why he backed Obama this time just doesn't make sense, and was enough to cause me to change my mind. Not because I'm fickle, but because I believe that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

2008 is off to a great start - Hilary loses big time. To the people of New Hampshire - let's keep it going.

GOOD FOR OBAMA. COME ON EDWARDS. GOOD BYE HILLARY.

RE: - More people should be watching Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. Its comedy but accurately depicts imo all the deals that are made in government.

Agree, but can't find that segment they used to have which explains what Question Period is about.

RE: - It might be that the notion that Obama can be swift boated is propaganda to stop him and is being spred by Republican operatives.

No. Obama is the front runner and someone is going to try to, at the very minimum, trip him up and I don't think it will be the Republicans. Part of it is the normal battle testing and each leader trying to make their plan look better and to catch the other one up.

And part of it, which will never be linked to any of the camps is the usual playing dirty - which I call "swift-boating." My guess is that it would be the Clintons rather than Edwards since he doesn't have the money for it and "swift-boating" relies too much on half truths.

Obama has to survive his own party and a media that is more curious of what he has to say and maneuver through the land minds before he gets to face the Republicans.

RE: - Its an incredible mess and most Americans are just so very very niave. and beleive what they read in the newspapers and hear with news sources.

Well everyone is covering it so if you don't like the newspapers you can shock your friends an neighbours by quoting english.aljazeera.net

Here is something they wrote:

However, Marash reported that a controversial comment made by McCain on Thursday may yet undermine his campaign.

"He told a crowd in Derry, New Hampshire, that if the US had to stay in Iraq for 100 years that would be alright with him," Marash said.

"In the past, McCain's policy of backing a US troop surge was aimed at allowing for an earlier withdrawal. This incautious statement could come back to haunt the senator."

In the final hours before the caucuses on Thursday night, many candidates bought time on local television to drive home their message and encourage maximum voter turnout.

I am sure that if the media doesn't bring it up, the other candidates will.

This is Aljazeera's Candidate profiles for both the Dems and the Repugs (checked Huckabee's already):

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/23953EDB-2468-4D5E-978E-123161305BF5.htm

Colleen do different issues come up in Canadian debates compared to American ones or are they about the same?

John F. Butterfield, good for you! At some point, ideas must matter.

It is astonishing to read so-called progressive comments to the effect that winning is an end independent of the ideas it represents.

Colleen, the problem is that Harper doesn't consider them mistakes.

The other problem is that - well no one has done a comedy called Talking to Canadians

Kim Campbell:

Brian Mulroney had almost ran out his time and had to call an election that he would lose soon. To avoid leading his party to defeat, Mulroney stepped down as the leader of the Progressive Conservatives and Kim Campbell became the new leader of the PCs (and automatically Prime Minister) for a few months before she was forced to call an election. Kim Campbell did say that. The PCs went from a majority to two seats.

It was about that time that the Reform party started in Alberta. The Reform party changed its name to the Canadian Alliance and then "merged" (usurpt) the PCs to form the new Conservative Party.

Alberta's issues are Harper's issues - and the Alberta tar sands is the biggest of them all.

I don't really remember Tommy Thompson though that part on wik where they said he debated Reagan sounds familiar like the name.

Brian Mulroney's Eulogy at Ronald Reagan's Funeral

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/reagan_ronald/mulroneyeulogy.html

This is not the Ronnie Reagan you an me remember. Hopefully, no former Canadian Prime shames his or her country by doing the eulogy for Bush or Huckabee. And, hopefully, when called upon to give the Eulogy for Harper, George W Bush will have already forgotten who he was.

vaudree

There is so much lying and positioning and misinformation and propaganda its difficult to know who is the best candidate. It might be that the notion that Obama can be swift boated is propaganda to stop him and is being spred by Republican operatives. Its all so machiavellian.

It could be that Hillary has been funded by some wealthy republicans because she has such high negatives that people will come out to vote against her. Or maybe they think the Dems will win and they support the dem candidate they can most easily work with...

Its an incredible mess and most Americans are just so very very niave. and beleive what they read in the newspapers and hear with news sources. The whole thing is manipulated...but I think this whole process is the way human beings are in political groups.

More people should be watching Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. Its comedy but accurately depicts imo all the deals that are made in government.

If Barak is elected he will come in with a team of people...and imo the team is more important than the individual. He will have to rely on others and his judgement will come into play when he chooses who to believe and who to trust.

Imo the Republicans are a nasty immoral bunch though, who will do whatever they need to do to hold power and get money...

vaudree

One thing I've heard up here in Canada ..is you guys watch what the US does and then avoid the mistakes...too bad more Americans are not looking at what Canada is doing right...and then do it

Most Americans will not know who Tommy Thompson was...I saw a film done about his life...and he is inspirational..a true Christian in the finest sense.

"An election is no time to discuss serious issues." - Kim Campbell, First female Prime Minister of Canada" (vaudree's quote)

Funny and probably true. Candidates will say what they need to say to get elected....

American faith seems to be so easily tarnished - which leads me to wonder what kind of faith it is. Is it a blind faith and trust or a faith based on experience?

Sometimes victories are small and sometimes they are big. It is like you are expecting something earth shattering to happen.

The fight between good and greed is a never ending struggle because neither side ever really and truly gives up completely.

Two questions you need to ask:
1) For the most part, which side is so-and-so on?
2) Is so-and-so up to the challenge?

I heard that Obama is very easy to swift-boat. Seems that the Republicans think that and hope no one does it to him until he is chosen to represent the Dems.

The media is ignoring Edwards, so they find him the most threatening of the three top runners.

They also find Kucinich threatening, but Kucinich doesn't have the same money to put into billboards and commercials.

vern

There was a lot to comment on by Glick and I chose this :
..........................................:
"One is this summary of U.S. history:
"We did not have to go through any of the violent upheavals that Europe was forced to endure as it shed its feudal past. Our passage from an agricultural to an industrial society was eased by the sheer size of the continent, vast tracts of land and abundant resources that allowed new immigrants to continually remake themselves." (p. 55) (obama quote)

"The civil war was not a "violent upheaval?" What about the Native peoples who were violently and forcibly displaced from those "vast tracts of land," the reality of slavery or the taking of half the land of Mexico by military force? Nowhere in the book does Obama correct this inaccurate, essentially racist view of U.S. history."(Glick quote)

............................................................................

I think Europe has had more genocide than the US and people have been killing one another there based upon nationality, religion and race for hundreds if not thousands of years. They had the inquisition and the holocaust and pogroms...The list is long. Even with the civil war and the genocide of native Americans the Us is not as severe historically in its denial of human rights imo Although now an argument could be made that europe is better at human rights..

Who wrote this next Vern?

.............................

"What an amazing night, not just for Barack Obama, but for America. I know that Senator Obama is so much more than simply the color of his skin, but all of us must acknowledge -- and celebrate --

the fact that one of the whitest states in the U.S. just voted for a black man to be our next president.

Thank you, Iowa, for this historic moment. Thank you for at least letting us believe that we are better than what we often seem to be. And to have so many young people come out and vote -- and vote for Obama -- this is a proud moment. It all began with the record youth turnout in 2004 -- the ONLY age group that Kerry won -- and they came back out tonight en force. Good on every single one of you!

As the only top candidate who was anti-war before the war began, Barack Obama became the vessel through which the people of this Midwestern state were able to say loud and clear: "Bring 'Em Home!" Most pundits won't read the election this way because, well, most pundits merrily led us down the path to war. For them to call this vote tonight a repudiation of the war -- and of Senator Clinton's four years' worth of votes for it -- might require the pundit class to remind their viewers and readers that they share some culpability in starting this war. And, like Hillary, damn few of them have offered us an apology.

skip

Bottom line: People have had it. Iowa will go blue (Happy Blue Year, Hawkeyes!). Whomever your candidate is on the Dem side, this was a good night. Get some sleep. The Republicans won't go down without a fight. Look what happened when Kerry tried to play nice. So Barack, you can talk all you want about "let's put the partisanship aside, let's all get along," but the other side has no intention of being anything but the bullies they are. Get your game face on now. And, if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates.

Despite what your answer may be, I was proud to sit in my living room tonight and see you and your family up on that stage. We became a bit better tonight, and on that I will close by saying, sweet dreams -- and on to that other totally white state of New Hampshire!

...................

me again...

Obama is not perfect..none of them are..and if you are waiting for a candidate who has only your opinions and can win....you will have a very long wait

(the quotes are from here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=221 )

Edwards stated (again) today that he's not interested in being second on a ticket again. He's in it to be president.

Ironic how people don't trust Edwards because he's a trial lawyer, or that he's admitted mistakes, but they can accept Obama's empty, feel-good rhetoric at face value, and call it "progressive" or "change." The only change Obama brings is the color of his skin. In most other ways, he's no different than Hillary or George Bush. He's in the hands of the corporate masters whom he wants to serve at the table. The metaphor astounds me!

To paraphrase the bumper sticker, people put off by Edwards' anger (and not angry themselves) haven't been paying attention.

drift, I'm in NH, working as a volunteer for Edwards. Perception is reality, so his 2d place finish in Iowa will be a challenge to overcome. Hillary's machine has been working overdrive here too, so she may "bounce" back from her humiliating 3d place finish in Iowa.
NH notoriously rejects the Iowa winners, and I fear Hillary may win NH, unless people really do want substantial change. The key word is substantial.

When I talk to people on the phone, the undecideds are often deciding between Obama and Edwards. To me, the choice is obvious--Edwards is the populist, progressive, and Obama is the soothing feel-good. I think people feel good about voting for a "black" man and call that change. Obama is the Reagan of his time, and it's sad and frightening that people have fallen for it.

liberal with an attitude January 4th, 2008 1:03 pm,
and others

Are you really sure that some of the "Democratic" candidates you mentioned aren't members of "the neocon fascist brigade"?

I usually vote Democratic for economic reasons. I support ideas like a non-profit healthcare system, public control of corporations, all education paid for by the government, equal opportunity, ending U.S. occupation of Iraq and not starting a war with Iran, trying to find real solutions to global warming, and nationalizing utilities, communication, and mass transportation.

Dennis Kucinich seems to have similar beliefs so I will vote for him and that should please you, because otherwise

I would vote Republican, because I believe abortion is murder, marriage is a sacrament, and gay behavior is a sin.
It's not the only sin. But it is the only sin that some people want to force me to accept as a sacrament. Gay behavior doesn't bother me as much as people who break the speed limit. Abortion bothers me more. I know where Dennis stands on these issues, but like I said, I usually vote my economic beliefs.

I have a collection of Bibles and I arrived before what I consider to be the baby boomers.

Now you can trash me if you want. But how many others will you be trashing at the same time? If Dennis Kucinich is not nominated and I vote for him anyway, the Democrats will be down by one vote. If I were to vote Republican, the Democrats would be down by two votes. If I am the only person who feels this way, then ignore me. But what if I'm not the only person who feels this way?

I believe the Democrats would get many more votes if their grass roots could get rid of the fascist DLC.

That's some theory Anne Faith. It's doesn't make sense for a straight shooter like Dennis K, however.

I'm quite pleased that Hill Clinton came in third.

anne faith--Your observations and sentiments are keen. I, too, am passionate about DK. But I trust you understand my motivations for an ABC--Anyone But Clinton--movement: The neoliberalcons associated with Clinton, Pelosi, Bush and Cheney must be ostracized and sidelined as much as possible from the Convention and its Platform process. IMO, Edwards and Obama are left of both Clintons, with the rest of the Democrat candidates left of both E & O.

Yes, the commentary on the Iowa results revealed a number of weak DK supporters, which is lamentable, but also helpful as we now know who is a true DK supporter.

Nobody was stunned by the results of this horse race. All 3 DP front runners got 1/3 of the delegates. So 'Oh Wow' how?

Progressives often praise Kucinich non-stop, including myself.

The reason might be because he's the only candidate with a consistent record of being serious about a full withdrawal from Iraq, a single-payer health-care system, and strong investment in alternative energy.

So why did Kucinich back Obama in the Iowa caucus? I've been going over Obama versus Edwards, issue-by-issue, and I see that Edwards agrees with my positions far more often than Obama.

This website helped with the analysis:
http://glassbooth.org
Here are my results:
http://glassbooth.org/Summary/index/11/7/551934/6e02bd5988d16bcabc1dcd938f7c6208

My faith in Kucinich has been tarnished after he chose Obama, who promises to increase investment in the ethanol scam, wants to make more nuclear plants, voted to keep the Patriot Act, and has horrible rhetoric when it comes to Iran, Venezuela, and "security operations" in Iraq.

Even if Kucinich is awesome, I can't believe he would say Obama is a real alternative. So I think Kucinich lost my primary vote. Edwards might not be perfect, but at least he's not Hillary, and he didn't endorse Obama as a second choice.

Lots of repugs are going to be switching parties for the nomination.

"An election is no time to discuss serious issues." - Kim Campbell, First female Prime Minister of Canada

I never figured out what Mrs. Clinton had to offer, and she never got around to informing me (or anyone else as far as I know). She should have learned a lesson from Mr. Kerry: if you arent' willing to take positions, you lose.

I know you all think he's a traitor for not supporting Edwards, but as I've said before, he is still in this race, and Edwards is his main competition for the progressive vote. So it wouldn't make sense for him to tell his people to caucus for his main competitor.

If Kucinich intended only to give up his votes for Iowa, why would it matter to his Iowa voters if they went to Edwards, rather than Obama? If he's only thinking about beating Edwards and not who most closely "resembles" him politically, which is Edwards, then he's being more self-centered than his usual stand would lead me to believe.

What I don't understand is why he just didn't say to his supporters that if he didn't make the threshhold in Iowa, they should vote for any of the other candidates they thought most closely approached their political values, leave it up to them.

Mixed feelings this week for me...

I was profoundly disappointed Dennis instructed his supporters to support Obama on the 2nd round. So disappointed I called the campaign office in Manchester and told them I would no longer be coming into to volunteer, and that I was switching to Edwards.

Wished Edwards had done better, but we've got 5 days left here in NH. I'm holding my breath, starting now.

But the 3rd place finish by Hillary has been a glimmer of hope for me, and I hope, for everyone else out there in CD land.

So, from now on, go Edwards. If you live in NH, and were supporting Dennis, I hope you'll reconsider as I did. I really think he screwed the pooch. And I LOVED this guy, still do, but WTF was he thinking???

I know what I'm about to say will fall on deaf ears, but here goes anyway:

Dennis Kucinich has neither "endorsed" Obama nor "thrown his support" to Obama. He has tried to make it clear that his statement of support for Obama was strictly an Iowa thing. Richardson, Dodd and Biden did exactly the same thing (told their supporters to caucus for Obama as their second choice if they didn't reach viability), but they did it on the sly and denied they were doing it until after the caucus was over. Right or wrong, Dennis did it out in the open, by issuing a press release.

I know you all think he's a traitor for not supporting Edwards, but as I've said before, he is still in this race, and Edwards is his main competition for the progressive vote. So it wouldn't make sense for him to tell his people to caucus for his main competitor. He and Obama are different enough (QUITE different) that perhaps this was a way to keep Iowa out of Hillary's hands and not shoot himself in the foot vis a vis Edwards.

The fact remains that Dennis is actively campaigning in N.H. and is suing the Texas Democrats to get on the ballot there. If he'd thrown in the towel like you portray it, why would he be doing these things? Do you really think he's just a spoiler? Is that what Dennis has been fighting for his whole life?

I've seen person after person turn on Dennis since his Obama announcement (including Progressive Democrats of America) and it makes me so angry, I could spit. Maybe you feel he's a traitor for not supporting Edwards, but I for one am not ready to dump him based on the peculiarities of the very fucked up Iowa Democratic caucus system and without knowing his reasons for doing what he did. Is this all it takes for you to turn on someone you supposedly supported? This is such a classic, left-wing, circular-firing-squad, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot kind of thing that it would almost be funny if it weren't so horribly sad. The right wingers reading these blogs must be having themselves a good ol time watching us tear each other to shreds over all this.

To me, the worst part of all this is that you've bought the MSM's pablum, hook line and sinker, and let the MSM win in its attempts to marginalize him, by saying Dennis can't win because (a) he's too short, (b) he's too weird, or (c) he saw a UFO. I used to think he was weird too, but the more I heard him speak, the more I came to truly love this guy and everything he stands for. While Edwards and Obama are smooth, Dennis is goofy and I actually find it endearing. It makes him HUMAN. George fucking Bush can't put two words together, and yet look how many people voted for that goofball.

I've seen how people respond to Dennis when he speaks. They cheer him, give him standing ovations, and laugh WITH him more than they laugh AT him. They can see that, weird or not, he's smart, he's right, he's courageous, and he truly cares about poor people and people in need.

So I will continue to stand by him. And when the apparently inevitable happens and he loses this race (thanks to people like you who've given up on him before he ever had a chance), then I will vote for the poor substitutes or I will vote Green. And the powers that be will have won once again.

RE: - Did anyone come in second?

Are you talking about John Edwards?

Poor Hillary just doesn't get it; too many voters are tired of her juggernaut campaign appearance, her switches in themes from "experienced" to "change", and the many opportunistic policy positions she has adopted (Cuba, Israel, gays in the military, flag burning, Iraq war, etc) that are intensely unpopular with many liberal Democrats and independents. We want fresh faces and fresh approaches, not centrist compromises.

m60green: Maybe. But I think the much larger part of the problem lies in what someone wants to get done. If Hillary can get the same things done that I want done, and she has the tools to do it then she is gonna get my vote.

I have nothing against Obama but he just doesn't have much experience and is going to have a huge learning curve if elected to office.

Did anyone come in second?

Colleen, Canada did not even have a war of independence - we are one of the few countries in the world who gained our independence by asking for it nicely.

bildad - every American should get to hear Mouseland. Hillary Clinton may be smart but she is still a Cat. And I am not talking about that orange vegetarian cat in that Disney movie either.

RE: - today we see a curiously identical vichy MSM message from David Brooks on the NYT opinion pages and E. J. Dionne on the WaPo opinion pages

Both seem to be singing Huckabee and Obama's praises as if this is their favoured match up. I get the feeling that they think Huck can beat Bam.

RE: - I'm supporting Kucinich, staunchly, loyally and openly, but if he bows out of the race and it becomes a choice between Hillary and Obama, I'll take Obama any day of the week.

Kucinich will stay on if it means speaking at the Democrat convention. He is running to get his ideas out there and to encourage others to steal them – and to take them to task if they only pretend to steal them. It would be nice if Kucinich could be President but at least we have him in Congress.

If more people voted their conscience, we would have an NDP Prime Minister. Here's hoping! But as long as we elect more of them!

If Edwards chooses a VP – I think he would be more likely to pick Nader over Kucinich, though. And, Nader, though qualified, would be a long shot for VP.

I doubt if Edwards will be VP again because the only thing that Cheney score a point on during their debate was that Edwards really wanted to be President. You could see it in Edwards face that VP wasn't the job he really wanted a bit too easily.

RE: - But I would compare it with abolitionists or the people who wanted to give women the right to vote. Those groups were also minorities but they were right.

Ever wonder how come Manitoba was the first Province to give women the right to vote? Speaking of designating people as heritage sites – here is Nellie McClung's Minute:

http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10643

Mary Ann Shadd was only warranted a Radio Minute, though "Underground Railroad" has both a Minute and a Radio Minute. Maurice Ruddick got one for helping to motivate the other miners to stay alive during the Nova Scotia mining disaster.

Opinionated – no it isn't …
Even with Bush blatantly pissing on us, there are people out there that are trying to not wake up and acknowledge what is happening.

It is the entertained to death population that allowed this.
If they could they would go right back to sleep.
All they need is a president that is less obvious and the snoring starts.
Look at the wars under Clinton anyone remember those?
That's the kind of coverage/complacency I'm afraid of under a democratic president.
They'll focus on Hillary's hair, face what Bill's doing. Anything but the issues.
With Bush at least we're reminded that we are in Iraq, that we do have secrete prisons where we torture people.

Are we to believe that the CIA will change its tune with a new president? I can see Billary becoming a media darling, mean while all the same will be happening.

BilDad – great story I will pass it on, thanks.

Nayoibi – That move of Bush's seems personally motivated to me.

Cavewoman - "she know how thing get done" yeah but isn't how things get done part of the problem?

Hillary Clinton is the most intelligent and most experienced candidate running in the primaries for the Democratic ticket. She has the best chance of winning against the Rebublicans and she has the most political capital to spend getting things done. She has the benefit of having been in Washington for 8 years already and is the most familiar with how and why things get done.

She has my vote.

And to m60green: who the hell cares what she looks like? What does that have to do with anything?

bildad,

Excelent analogy - the whole thig missing from all US discourse isn't race or sex, it is CLASS.

Now how is it that Edwards got more caucus votes than Hillary, but less delegates????

Obama and Edwards are both AIPAC stooges. Both, with their buddy Hillary, are in favor of bombing Iran. Vote for Kucinich.

WE NEED NEW ROYAL FAMILIES.
AND WE NEED BIG NUMBERS TO DEFEAT THE VOTING MACHINE SOFTWARE. GOBAMA.

YEAH,its a "hound dawg" howdy from huck,and sorry about that "trixie",and yew too "dixie."now progs have a black guy to tell usn's to watch our manners when discussing corporate plundering-back in the antebellum oligarchical era we called it "white folks bidnez." thats progress,or at least entertainment.

It's sillary to think that Hillary, along with her husband Billary, could be back in the WH, 'cause if she becomes the Deadlicrats nominillary, the smelly and noxious Repuglicans will tar and feather her into neverneverland, and she will go hide in a closet somewhere, and the US people will be frightened into voting for Googliani or Huckleberry or Puffyface McCainnery, and the whole thing will be completely KAPUT!

Of course, this could be all wrong. But it was fun to write.

From a Canadian, but even more applicable to politics in the U.S. The animated version can be found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqpFm7zAK90

Mouseland (As told by Tommy Douglas in 1944)

It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.

They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats.

Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of Canada for last 90 years and maybe you'll see that they weren't any stupider than we are.

Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws--that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds--so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort.

All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats.

Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said: "The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes."
And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever. And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that
coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat.

You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.

Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect
a government made up of mice?"

"Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik. Lock him up!"

So they put him in jail.

But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea.

Edwards was just in "The Situation Room" on CNN and he said that he planned to take all COMBAT troops out of Iraq and to not get involved in any COMBAT missions. That doesn't rule out Peace-keeping missions.

Colleen,

Re: Heritage sites

So the Nazrey African Methodist Episcopal Church (1848) becomes a Heritage site and the Heritage Minister takes credit! How did it become an Heritage site? Well someone had to be aware of the criteria for declaring an old building a heritage site and, furthermore, that same someone would have to know that being able to document the historical significance of the building would make the deal more likely (ie that it was used in the Underground Railway). And that person has to be willing to keep insisting that Nazrey be made a heritage site (which comes with funding for building maintenance) until it happens. That "someone" is likely to be Black. I smell McCurdy involvement along with the whoever Melvin Simpson is. I was right:

There is mention of "Nazrey" in the McCurdy collection.
http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/exhibits/alvin_mccurdy/community.htm

Here is a picture of Bishop Willis Nazrey
http://www.windsor-communities.com/african-religion-britishepis.php

RE: Heritage and persons

I think that the article was referring to the Heritage Minutes.

Canada's history is not as squeaky clean as it seems. There is dirt beneath the surface. Just because Canada is responsible for the fact that James Ford Seale is now in jail doesn't make us perfect!

It doesn't surprise me that the estimates of deaths in that riot was way off. And, when I get around to reading Naomi Klein's book I'll be more offended at what happened in New Orleans (and, to a much lesser extent with Canadaville) than I am now, probably - and the whole thing is very offensive!

Have you heard of Africville in Nova Scotia? What do you know about it?

you guys,dont read, barely listen. last week bush passed a bill giving the insurance and pharmaceutical companies what they wanted hilliary to do for them, bigger profits and less repercussions.he did this buy robbing the elderly.it can be considered a direct attack against hilliary clinton and nulls and voids the reasons she had strong backers.bush and co. obviously do not want hilliary to win.that is just one of the many reasons,i think she would be the right president. my real feelings lie in what mastershake is saying,there aren't any good choices and (our votes,don't count anymore)....so very sad,but true.i would like to believe in edwards,he is the most sane,but just like all of the others,he is most likely a liar,who knows the right things to say.

Nader2000-

I appreciate your optimism, but a president of the United States holds the job of top PR man for big business. There is no such thing as an effective progressive presidency in these United States. The best a U.S. president can do is attempt to convince the captains of industry that throwing the people a larger share of crumbs is in their own best interest. There would need to be an actual revolution in this country for an actual progressive platform to be adopted. Either that or a near-total economic meltdown. And if there's an economic meltdown I'll no longer be able to afford this Internet connection to set youse strait round chere.

Kelmer, think again re the bible-thumper and research Mike Huckabee. This is a dangerous militant wrapped up in deflected 'humor':

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=24888

This is a very brief synopsis, so be sure to read the 2nd page after the YouTube video.

karlof1

Yes, it really struck me how much control the Democratic party itself has over who gets elected, FAR FAR more than voters. Here's more, also published by the AP, about the superdelegate operation (a couple of sentences are repeats from above):

Most Democratic 'superdelegates' uncommitted
Clinton leads Obama in officials who aren't bound by primary results

WASHINGTON - New Hampshire and Iowa will have to wait.

The nation's first presidential primary, for Democrats anyway, is being waged among hundreds of party insiders — superdelegates who could play a big part in selecting the nominee at next summer's national convention.

So far, most of them still haven't been sold on any of the candidates.

The Associated Press contacted 90 percent of the 765 superdelegates, mostly elected officials and other party officers, who are free to support anyone they choose at the convention, regardless of what happens in the primaries.

Hillary Rodham Clinton leads Barack Obama by more than a 2-1 margin among those who have endorsed a candidate. But a little more than half of those contacted — 365 — said they haven't settled on a Democratic standard bearer.

"The fact that under half have publicly committed shows me how open the Democratic race still is," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic consultant who is not affiliated with any campaign. "It's a sign that the race isn't totally done in many people's minds."

Clinton hampered by electability questions

Clinton has the endorsement of 169 superdelegates. She is followed by Obama, 63; John Edwards, 34; Bill Richardson, 25; Chris Dodd, 17; Joe Biden, 8, and Dennis Kucinich, 2.

Superdelegates tend to support the front-runner, said David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University. "They want to be on the winning side," he said.

So why don't more of them back Clinton, who leads in national polls?

"They are still concerned about her ability to win the general election," Rohde said.

He said Clinton's high negative numbers among likely voters have many party insiders skittish. However, he added, if Clinton sweeps the early voting in Iowa and New Hampshire, "these people will flock to her."

On the other hand, a spokeswoman for Obama expressed confidence he would pick up superdelegates after doing well in early voting states. "We are pleased with our current support in the DNC and know that as the states go, so will superdelegates," said Jen Psaki.

Superdelegates are the ultimate party insiders, including all Democratic members of Congress, as well as a number of other elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee. They will attend the convention next summer with about 3,200 other delegates who have been pledged to various presidential candidates based on the outcomes of primaries and party caucuses in their states.

Democratic candidates need a little more than 2,000 delegates to claim the nomination. That can make the superdelegates, who will number about 800 after state parties select a few more this summer, important players in choosing a nominee.

Most GOP delegates have chosen a side

The Republicans have far fewer unaffiliated delegates, a little more than 100, making Democratic superdelegates a unique political force.

Don Fowler, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said many superdelegates delay public endorsements because they don't want alienate the other candidates.

"It's a club and they don't like to offend their fellow club members until they have to," said Fowler, himself an uncommitted superdelegate from South Carolina....

Senators remain uncommitted

Four of the Democratic candidates are senators: Clinton from New York, Obama from Illinois, Dodd from Connecticut and Biden from Delaware. A fifth, Edwards, is a former senator from North Carolina. Yet 33 of the 49 Democratic senators, who are all superdelegates, remain uncommitted. Clinton, with 10 senators in her corner, is the only candidate with endorsements from more than two, according to the AP survey.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22067963

From what I observed last night at my caucus, Richardson, Biden and Kucinich supporters mostly went to Edwards and a few to Obama after their candidates weren't viable. Interesting to note, I don't think hardly anyone went to Hillary's camp. After talking to others, they noticed the same thing at their caucus.

It looked like the young and African Americans went for Obama, a mixed group of ages and the progressives for Edwards and the older folks, most of them women went for Hillary. In a nation full of narcisstic celebrity worshippers, it's no wonder Obama is so well liked amoung the younger set, he's the rock star.

Hilary Clingon is a political animal willing to do anything to attain and hold power. In that regard she's just like her husband, willing to sell herself out to any group of interests and having no real positions other than what external dictates and the quest to maintain power tell her to do.

Therefore it's important to remember that once in office, she would probably buckle under to public pressure to end the war(s) attempt to create a single-payer health care system, leave Social Security alone, etc...

In other words, once in office it is quite possible that she would mold herself to the general wishes of the populace rather than the will of corporate elite. I can't offer the same speculation regarding Obama or Edwards.

"However, whether or not we want to admit it Bush has been good for the progressive base..."
WTF? That's kind of like saying "Well, plague was good for the development of medicine."

No more dynasties.

Thanks anney for the reminder that the ABC--Anyone But Clinton--movement has an uphill task ahead if it is to triumph and the Platform become more progressive than it would be otherwise.

Superdelegates are yet another reminder that the Democrat Party is NOT democratic.

Wasn't there another guy in the race? What was his name?
Kusinick? Cusinish? Whatever happened to him?
I heard he made some appeal to his supporters to caucus for someone else! Strange.
Anyway, I remember reading (and writing) in this space that support for this guy was a fantasy. And I remember reading in this space that we should quit being so negative, that he could win if we just believed, etc. Hmmmm
If we just Think the Minuet in G then we can Play the Minuet in G.
Back to reality: The odious Hillary Clinton has been dealt a major setback. REJOICE!

Nobody should count any chickens yet. The eggs aren't hatched.

Keep in mind the Democratic party's superdelegates. Article from Associated Press. Superdelegates aren't bound by any of the primary/caucus results, and they each have a vote, equivalent to many combined American votes in the caucuses, and they may vote for whom they wish.

Clinton Leads Delegate Race

By The Associated Press – 2 hours ago

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed one fewer delegate than Sen. Barack Obama in the Iowa caucuses Thursday night, but she still has the lead in the overall race for delegates because she has a commanding lead among superdelegates.

The Democratic National Committee has allotted states a total of 796 superdelegates to the party's national convention this summer. Those delegates, mainly members of Congress, other elected officials and DNC members, are free to support any candidate at the convention, regardless of the outcomes of the primaries and caucuses.

Most superdelegates contacted by the AP before the Iowa caucuses were undecided. However, among those who have endorsed a candidate, Clinton leads with 160, compared to 59 for Obama and 32 for former Sen. John Edwards.

Those numbers could change dramatically if Obama continues to win at the ballot box, which could lead to more endorsements by superdelegates.

An AP analysis of the Iowa caucus results showed Obama winning 16 delegates, followed by Clinton with 15 and Edwards with 14. In the overall race for delegates, Clinton leads with 175, followed by Obama with 75 and Edwards with 46.

A total of 2,025 delegates is needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Iowa chose the Chicago Commodities Exchange and its dancing puppet over the New York Stock Exchange and its dancing puppet.

And capitalism does die hard.

Increase size of American military by bringing in the draft.

The natural consequence of the draft will be resistance, ending the foreign wars, bringing the troops home, and heavy reins on the MIC, CIA etc.

Seems like the beginnings of a plan, make sure that conscription is brought in right away. It is probably the only the only way to get the WMCAs to feel the hot water.

Obama and Kucinich look like the ticket alright.