Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAfter seven years of the Bush administration, who in the U.S. does not want to see a dramatic change in the nation's leadership?
For that reason the Republican candidates have an uphill battle, since most of them have not distanced themselves sufficiently from the failed stewardship of President Bush.
On the Democratic side, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois say they are the true advocates of change. But they are short on specifics.
Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is more definitive on one issue at least, saying he would bring U.S. combat troops home from Iraq within 10 months.
He also is on the attack against poverty, corporate greed, war profiteering and free trade pacts that cost U.S. jobs.
Clinton emphasizes her "experience" in the White House as first lady, saying this makes her the best candidate to bring about change.
But in 2002 as war clouds gathered, Clinton aligned herself with the administration on a critical vote giving Bush the green light in Iraq.
And four months ago she voted for the resolution that could have paved the way for an attack on Iran.
The resolution -- sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. -- designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.
The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate recently defused the threat of war by reporting that Iran in 2003 dropped plans to build a nuclear arsenal.
Of the Democrats' three top presidential seekers, Clinton appears to be the least inclined toward dramatic change on foreign policy.
But she may be able to trump Obama, whose campaign is based on "hope" and "optimism" -- ephemeral terms at a time when the voters may be looking for solid answers to America's pressing problems.
That's what the 2008 election is all about: answers.
All the candidates should be pinned down on how they feel about Bush's concept of pre-emptive war; wiretapping without a warrant; waterboarding and other forms of torture; and the policy of "rendition" -- sending prisoners to jails abroad where they are subject to abusive interrogation while being held in limbo.
The presidential hopefuls also should be quizzed on the lack of real oversight of CIA activities and immunity for the telecom companies that have cooperated with the administration's wiretapping schemes.
Their views are needed on privatizing the war with thousands of gun-slinging mercenaries employed by Blackwater and other private security firms. Assigned to protect U.S. diplomats, they're paid handsomely -- some as much as $1,500 a day and more.
The candidates also should offer specifics on how they will provide medical care for the 47 million Americans without health insurance.
A single-payer system -- much like what we have with Social Security -- is the most comprehensive solution, but the candidates are avoiding it in favor of tweaks to the haphazard, luck-of-the-draw coverage we have now.
Bush is trying to go green -- belatedly -- but the environment and the future of the planet are issues that have been neglected far too long.
There is also the economy, and the inroads that globalization and free trade have made on U.S. production capacity and the livelihoods of U.S. workers. Manufacturing has fled the country and globalization has proved to be a race to the economic bottom rather than a boon for U.S. jobs.
And how about the unscrupulous mortgage lending practices that yielded rampant housing foreclosures?
At this point, questions are in greater supply than answers: Which of the candidates buys Bush's biggest tax cuts for the richest Americans? What about how federal agencies have been politicized while the traditional, apolitical civil service has been gutted?
The candidates won't even touch the highly controversial issues of capital punishment and gun control. And you don't hear much about abortion rights and gay marriage.
Those wedge issues have given a lift to conservatives in the past. But now, they are nowhere near the top of the agenda.
Once we get the answers on issues that do matter from our would-be presidents, then we can all honestly wish for peace on Earth in 2008.
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com.
Copyright 2008 Hearst Newspapers
61 Comments so far
Show AllDemocrats need to take a stand? That'll be the F'n day!! I love you Helen Thomas, but that ain't happenin' in my lifetime!
You Go, Nathaniel! Kick them in the cash!
Thanks Artist General, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYe7D6hJtRU&feature=related
I am so happy that this idea of asking the President and Deciders of war to recuse themselves from the Profits of War has been seeping into our reality.
From one Folk Performer to another, you are on the front lines of the good fight for Peace and Justice.
Keep Hammering,
Jimglover@verizon.net
Any journalist following the campaign who is younger than Helen Thomas should be required to have Ms Thomas' questions tatooed to his/her forehead. That might serve as a reminder to them as to what their job really consists of.
I'd never vote for Hil because you also get Bill
and he's the elite scum of the earth...white trash
He was a the best republican the democrates ever had and all he did was bomb Iraq for 8 years and sent jobs over seas...nafta is a disaster...and he's liar...he made a few friends rich... pardoned rich friends and executed a retarded man as governor in the run up to his first election to prove how tough on crime he was...and all that womanizing ugh...Hil is just another one of his abused women
...I can't stand looking at him
I cant believe it. I never thought i would give money to the Bendovercrats. 2/3rds against my own bett judgement I sent 100$ to John Edwards yesterday. I have a sort of gadfly strategy. I think we need SOMEBODY TO TALK ABOUT CORPORATE DOMINATION ON TH NATIONAL STAGE.
The harder it is for the Corporations to Kill off Edwards-- the more obvious will be the hit.
I am not naive about Edwards but I see the whole thing in terms of communications, mahhhn.
"make sure a Democrat gets elected."
That's what people believed in 2006- the Dems are in charge now, what have they done? Nothing but solidfy their roles as enablers. There will be a new Nuremburg trial, and the Dems will be on trial right alongside the Repubs.
Watch this video of Waxman- This man should be fired.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wei_hJdwkxY
More Democrats, esp DINOs like Edwards, Obama and Clinton, are not the answer. The answer is for real Americans- teachers, techies, etc- to band together and run for Congress, united to stop the war.
margalo has an excellent point on Kucinich. He has a powerful position in the House. So the question is clear: would you rather have Kucinich in power or not? If you want Kucinich in power, make sure a Democrat gets elected.
The Democrats are afraid to make a stand.
For good reason!
Because The Cor'pirate' FASCIST dirt bags are still
Standing in the shadows
Ready to assassinate all opposition.
Where would we be if the brightest and best amongst us was running our Government?
Instead of these evil, selfish, cruel, petty Tyrants?
How many martyrs do you need before you realize that the system is morally bankrupt?
Their system is evil and corrupt.
Its self imploding from the weight of its own GREED!
Stand back and take a seat.
They began the destruction themselves,
When they knocked down the Towers!
Become self sufficient and self reliant.
Organic gardens,
Renewable energy and Green houses.
Forget The Schlock Market and
Invest in your own Communities and yourselves.
The Government has been taken over by special interest.
Wealthy Corpirate Interests.
Instead of protecting us,
They have enslaved us!
Helen's voice is a lone shrill voice in the darkness.
But, the Grim Reality remains,
We live in a Military Dictatorship.
When we free ourselves from the Religion of Violence
And we become more cooperative, truly compassionate, helpful and peaceful.
Only then will we be able to effect positive change.
We are being dictated to by Prehistoric Fossils!
Old Dinosaurs left over from a bygone age!
The FOSSIL FUEL AGE.
We are standing in the middle of a Technology War between
Renewable and BLACK!
Dead Eye Dick and Shrub are the products of
Dirty old twentieth century technology.
They beat the same old drums of ignorance and WAR!
We have nothing left to give.
The people have been bled dry!
Let the chips fall where they may.
Bring The Militia Home!
Rebuild and protect America first.
Provide subsidence and health to all,
Instead of Death and Destruction to a few.
Shut,
The WAR Machine down.
And
Energy prices will drop by half.
Thank you, Lobo Gris, for your January 5th, 2008 4:09 am comments on Clinton's support for the Iraq war. I'd only add that, in the spirit of "the cover up is worse than the crime", I find her comments in response to criticism of that vote even more damning than the vote itself (and the vote was and remains, in my view, a disqualifier). Clinton claims -- I don't have the quote, but I have posted it in e-mails to Clinton, the DNC, and others in the past -- that she voted for S.J. Res. 23 ("Section 1. Short Title: This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'") to support diplomacy, AND with the expectation that Bush et al. would not go to war until and unless all diplomatic efforts had been tried and had failed. What I find so abhorrent about this claim is that there is not one word about "diplomacy", let alone about Bush being required to make any effort to achieve a diplomatic solution prior to war, in S.J. Res. 23. There is, on the other hand, a "blank check" with which Bush is "authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons HE [my emphasis -- i.e.. Bush alone, at his total discretion, need so only what he has "determined", and Clinton has authorized him to go to war against those people] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001" To claim, in light of that text, that one voted for S.J. Res. 23 in order to support diplomacy or that one, having voted for the J. Res., was surprised that Bush went to war rather than to diplomacy, one must be a fool, think ones listeners are fools, not have read the J. Res., a liar, or some combination of the four. And then there is Clinton's vote for the Lieberman/Kyl "let's bomb Iran" resolution. And yes, I know that the vote for Lieberman/Kyl was 76 - 22. So Clinton had lots of bad company. So does Bush. Is that really an excuse? There were 22 senators who did NOT vote for it, including Hagel and Lugar, as well as Dodd and Biden (McCain and Obama did not vote). So with all due respect for Dominick J., on January 4th, 2008 at 5:31 pm, I find Clinton's actions in the past not only relevant to evaluating her in the present, but the most relevant basis on which to evaluate her in the present -- not something that, having occurred more than 5 years ago, should now be regarded as irrelevant.
I love you, Helen Thomas!
Helen, I'd vote for YOU any day! If we could get someone in the White House that has even half the guts you exhibit - we MAY be able to turn this great Country around!
Thanks for all you do,
Susan Frishkorn, Pensacola
Dominick J. January 4th, 2008 5:31 pm
""But in 2002 as war clouds gathered, Clinton aligned herself with the administration on a critical vote giving Bush the green light in Iraq."
Republicans and ALL Clinton bashers love using the above against her. When the truth of the matter is Quite a few Senators aligned themselves doing the same thing, GOP as well as Demos. McCain did it too and Rethugs continue to do it even those as candidates for 2008!
For her and many of the other Senators it happened in 2002, it's 2007, it's about time they left it alone!"
What better way to learn how someone will act after being elected than by scrutinizing their voting record in their current and past offices that they have held?
Not to mention the fact that Hillary has never admitted that her 2002 vote was wrong nor has she apologized for it.
Lobo Gris
THANK YOU HELEN THOMAS!!!! WE NEED MORE NEWSMAKERS TO SPEAK OUT LIKE THIS AND HOPEFULLY SOME POLITICIANS WITH COHONES TO DO SO AS WELL.
The rise of the populist movement against economic oppression and police state tyranny is the domestic side of what the anti-war movement is against expanding imperialist foreign wars.
The really seminal point is that both these rising political trends are simply the domestic and foreign policy aspects of an even more all encompassing political trend ------ the rise of a deeper anti-empire movement.
The rising of this anti-empire movement combining anti-war activism and economic populism is against the non-democratic actions of the global corporatist Empire hiding behind the facade of 'Vichy America' ---- which is the core of all American's problems both foreign and domestic.
Hannah Arendt presciently warned that, "Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home", and the American people are now recognizing and confronting the effects of this corporatist empire for the combined threat that it represents to our democracy both in wars abroad and tyranny at home.
Iammyself:
I just totally agree with notions of self reliance, Just another brick in the wall!-Another song comes to mind "people get ready there's a train coming". 'REJECT THE BOOGY MAN'. none OF THEM HAVE ANSWERS FOR YOU, IT'S ABOUT FULFILLING THEIR EGO' OR SHOULD i SAY ACTUALIZING THEIR IDS
"Once we get the answers on issues that do matter from our would-be presidents, then we can all honestly wish for peace on Earth in 2008."
Helen, dear,
Some have tried to give us answers on issues that do matter, but they have been shut out by your pals in the media. Want to hear some real answers? Do something about it yourself. You have the power.
Thank you, abbybwood.
I researched.
"Edwards: The American people deserve to know about President Bush's illegal spying on Americans."
- - -
"In late November, we sent questionnaires to the top candidates–measured by funds raised and poll standings–from each major party. We asked each the same 10 questions."
"Telecommunications companies such as AT&T have been accused in court of opening their networks to the government in violation of federal privacy law. Do you support giving them retroactive immunity for any illicit cooperation with intelligence agencies or law enforcement, which was proposed by the Senate Intelligence Committee this fall (S 2248)?
Edwards: The American people deserve to know about President Bush's illegal spying on Americans. Providing big telecom companies retroactive immunity would mean that the facts about these abuses will never come out in court. Congress should stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law by rejecting any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies."
http://www.worldtwist.com/john-edwards/
Helen Thomas - what a dipshit! She's offering the Democrats advice about how to get elected?
We should be figuring out a way to bury the entire party after we bury the Republicans.
She wants them to talk about gun control, gay rights, and abortion. Those are the issues that got Bush elected the first time around.
AGREE TO SURRENDER 'DA$ BOOTY' ON DEMAND? YES OR NO...
PRESIDENTIAL BLIND TRUSTED HEDGE FUNDIES BE-F-IN'-WARE
"[this]topic ought to draw discussion among 2008 presidential candidates, who have a lot of air time to fill in an overly long campaign. Forswearing profits from war is very little to ask of someone who would be president...
SEATTLE P-I / Editorial Board
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/25/5422/
Thank you Helen Thomas!
Now what we need is someone with your guts, that is holding a political position to promote a Health Care System that we can challenge Canada, England and France as depicted in Moore's "Sicko".
What an outrage that we have been hood-winked and lied to and told how BAD their systems were for all these years. How much worse could they be if we are paying $400 to $500, maybe more, for the rotten system we have. (I fortunately belong to "Group Health of Washington", a very satisfactory and efficient service.) But the horror stories we hear regarding other facilities, makes me angry and disgruntled.
If what we need to get a satisfactory "Health Care System" is a revolution, then let's start a revolution. We don't want to overthrow the Government, we just want our citizens health taken care of.
It seems that ExSen. Edwards is the only candidate that has the guts to mention "Universal Health Care". So my vote goes to EDWARDS.
Thanks again Helen Thomas.
dreamertoo:
You wonder about the Constitution being violated and what the candidates are doing about it?
There is only ONE candidate even MENTIONING the Constitution, Ron Paul:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnLLcsqavNA
This speech by Ron Paul in New Hampshire will help you realize that he SERIOUSLY respects the Constitution far more than any other candidate, except Dennis Kucinich:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7493899900883927358&loc=interst...
ABC has now decided to allow Ron Paul into their debate before the New Hampshire primary. I believe Fox is still excluding him, even though Giuliani (1% in Iowa?) is still invited.
If the American People allow the media to choose which candidates we can hear from then we truly are living under a corporate fascist state, not a democracy.
I suggest Commondreamers do as much research as they can on Ron Paul and please watch the ABC debate. Observe how the media and the other Republicans are CRINGING that they have to listen to him talk about ending the war in Iraq and on and on.
And I do find it VERY interesting that ALL the Dems and Repubs are for the death penalty, except....Ron Paul.
Great article Helen. But you do all that and the misguided majority will call it communism.
But Helen, in order for the democrats to take a stand they will have to stop defecating in their hats.
"A single-payer system — much like what we have with Social Security — is the most comprehensive solution, but the candidates are avoiding it in favor of tweaks to the haphazard, luck-of-the-draw coverage we have now." Thomas
Right, right, right.
They are getting money from the telecoms and giving them immunity. The telecoms are refusing to tell Congress what they did, when, and why. Congress needs that information to determine what crimes have been committed by whom. No information, no prosecution; certainly no impeachment.
The Constitution of the United States is being violated every American citizen is being harmed. This is happening right now.
What are the candidates doing about it?
Senator Christopher Dodd is asking them for their help.
Helen,
It's too bad Molly Ivins is no longer with us. I'd vote for a Thomas/Ivins or Ivins/Thomas ticket anyday. Just for the fact you repeatedly made Bush so fearful to call on you in a press conference means you got too close to the truth (or lies he wanted to cover up).
Keep on his ass; we're behind you all the way. I'll even lend you a paddle for use on the errant juvenile.
For all you 'undecided' idiots here is a little quiz that might help you select a candidate you agree with:
http://www.dehp.net/candidate/
Here is a long list of reasons to eliminate one of the candidates:
http://www.sonic.net/~taryfast/Hillary.html
I get surveys from the DNC about issues important to "the grassroots". Then they ask for money. I always answer each question in longhand and in my own words and tell them I will send money when I see some change. I'll send money when Cheney is impeached. I'll send money when war funds are cut off. I'll send money when congress passes an idiot boy signs into law universal health care.
WEXLERWANTSHEARINGS.COM
sign the petition to begin impeachment hearings for cheney
Take your pick, change or The Gulag.
If Helen Says they need to take a stand, If they know what's Good for them, they had better take it.
"But in 2002 as war clouds gathered, Clinton aligned herself with the administration on a critical vote giving Bush the green light in Iraq."
Republicans and ALL Clinton bashers love using the above against her. When the truth of the matter is Quite a few Senators aligned themselves doing the same thing, GOP as well as Demos. McCain did it too and Rethugs continue to do it even those as candidates for 2008!
For her and many of the other Senators it happened in 2002, it's 2007, it's about time they left it alone!
The other questions Common Dreams posses can be asked and answered, even after a person has been selected by the party to run for the Presidency. We have time to get it all sorted out.
I'm not worried, well I am, they might pick the Wrong person for the wrong reason and in my opinion Barack is the wrong person.
Dominick
Helen, I love you. ALAS, the Democrats will NOT take a stand on the issues you're talking about. Why? They need to RAISE MONEY and they need to TRIANGULATE for purposes of electability. Finally, they half-agree with the Republicans. Obama may be "against" so-called preventive war-- then again, he may be for it. It depends on the case! The same may often hold true on Waterboarding, Random Wiretapping. The Democratic Party's job is to INDICATE to "progressives" that they MAY be against the WORST offenses of Dubya. But the Democratic Party as potential OPPOSITION Party? Gimme a break!
Just more of the same! Do you think Obama is going to restore your Civil Liberties end torture and spying on Americans? Think again.
God love ya, Helen. You have more courage and independence than all the other White House correspondents together. But I'm afraid the democrats don't have either the vision or backbone to do the right thing and advocate the sort of deep reforms that the country really needs at this time. Single payer health care for all is the place to start, but that is only a beginning. Obama and the others except Kucinich don't dare advocate single payer health care, because that would mean unemployment for hundreds of thousands of paper pushers in the insurance business. So we can count on the country continuing its lurch into mediocrity and dependency on outside creditors like China. We the people are too blame as well for falling into the decadence of mesmerization by a bread and circus popular culture and gross consumerism.
Elected leaders seldom lead... But they are very good at anticipating where the public wants to go, and then "leading" us in that direction - as though it were their own idea.
Neither Edwards nor Obama will save us. We have to save ourselves. If we create political power on progressive issues at the local level, and show them that it's safe to do so, we can wean them away from the tempting power offered by Wall Street and K Street.
I think it was Helen who quoted Bush SR something like.. "If the people ever found out what we were doing, they would hunt us down and lynch us."
The Bush Crime family is so full of evil secrets that the only thing that saves their self respect is the belief that if their secrets were officially uncovered they would be hanged by an unruly Mob.... Bush's "Class Warfare" excuse again.
Now we should all know why they took the USA out of the International Criminal Court!
Helen is great!
Amen, sister Helen!!!
Helen Thomas=American Hero, so few of them Left
Excellent point, brissot: Exactly how do you "come together" with people whose guiding principle is to take no prisoners?
I wish someone would directly ask Obama how he would handle that problem. Edwards has already pointed out you cannot compromise with people who don't compromise. That got my vote.
Helen Thomas, one of, if not the only, useful reporter left in Washington. Hats off to Helen!
When only weasels run for public office, do you expect them to act like something more noble? Politics 101 these days seems to have as its Prime Directive: Taketh not a position on anything if you can help it, somebody might vote against you because of it.
I wish they'd take a train/plane/boat, instead of this so-called 'Stand'...and take these so-called 'conservatives' with-them. [Can't they ALL just go live someplace else, like wherever most of their money-lives?]
"All the candidates should be pinned down on how they feel about Bush's concept of pre-emptive war; wiretapping without a warrant; waterboarding and other forms of torture; and the policy of "rendition" — sending prisoners to jails abroad where they are subject to abusive interrogation while being held in limbo." The very fact that they have to be "pinned down" on issues of such profound moral importance tells us all we need to know. All the candidates would sell out on fundamental human rights and principles to buy votes from the dark age nationalists who believe the US is above the law and can do whatever it likes, however atrocious.
Obama is like a balloon. What you see is all there is. Theres nothing inside.
the one candidate they have is Kucinich. He is the ony one they have who is not being bought.
Obama is taking money from Israel. So is Hillary Clinton.
On anither note: if hillary had given bill a little BJ now and then,,,maybe he would have been a better president.
I keep reading about Mr. Obama's resolve to put aside partisanship and work across the aisle. I have to say, in principle, that sounds great. In fact, the biggest argument I have with many folks on this site is their determination to let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good." But, from a practical perspective, I can't help but wonder with whom is he going to reach his grand compromise and what, exactly, he is going to compromise?
Now, this may change after November '08 – and if it does, I believe any of the Democratic contenders would be willing to work with people of goodwill - but, when I gaze across the aisle, I don't see goodwill. I see people with absolutely no interest in compromise. Exactly how do you "come together" with people whose guiding principle is to take no prisoners? Perhaps I suffer from a lack of imagination or my capacity for hope is insufficiently audacious.
So, some questions for Mr. Obama. What compromise will you reach with people who:
Believe some illusion of security is more important than the Bill of Rights?
Insist the Executive is above the Law and superior to the other two branches of government?
Think hedge fund managers should be subject to a lesser tax rate than the rest of us?
Prescribe tax cuts - for the wealthiest, of course – as the remedy for an overheated economy, a slowing economy, a surplus (as if that needs to be cured) or a deficit.
Defend the politicization of our legal system?
Take the tops off mountains to mine more coal to create more greenhouse gasses?
Kidnap citizens of any nation – including our own – hold them without charge or counsel and torture them?
Intentionally disenfranchise qualified voters?
See a "free" market when all the resources and information are controlled by a select few and believe that market should be entrusted to allocate resources for social needs like health care for our children?
Send our young men and women to die for a lie but refuse to care for them when they return damaged?
Promote shopping as an expression of citizenship?
Pile massive debt on our children to finance their ruinous war and tax cuts for corporations and the well off?
Preach that you must be a Christian to be an American?
Refuse to submit to oversight by anyone but their handpicked foxes?
Consistently advance ideology over fact in forming policy?
There are many more but you get the idea.
As long as the the lawmakers have to beg for money to get elected the government will be controlled by special intrests with deep pockets.
I like Kucinich but I don't believe he could win so I feel Edwards is the only candidate now standing up for the regular guy. He has many spicefics on his web site on what he would do as president.
Obama gave an insperiational speech last night but he is light on the issues on his web site and says nothing about restoring our constitutional protections that the Bushites have taken away.
It helps to have major candidates talking about issues we care about, but sometimes it is just talk during campaign season. I think our job is to be the ones who are talking about these issues every day so when candidates talk about them, people will know what they are talking about. We need to be the leaders, speakers, creators, innovators, motivators....
The Republicans don't have a viable candidate, none. The only way they have a chance in the general election is if Obama or Hillary wins the primary, for they believe Huckabee can defeat them. They know John Edwards is the one they CANNOT beat.
If the Democrats REALLY wish to join ranks, Hillary will bow out now and allow Edwards and Obama to fight it out. She has to realize she cannot win the primary, no matter how much money she tosses into the pot. Perhaps she could be selected as the VP on the Edwards ticket, such types of deals are not uncommon. __ It won't happen though.
Listen up CD people, Dennis Kucinich will NOT go independent, because the result would only be that he loses his seniority in the House of Representatives. He would have to forego running to retain his seat in Congress!
In case you have not been following what his role is in Congress, Rep. Waxman, ranked 4th most powerful in Congress is chair of the Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee. Chairman Waxman appointed Kucinich as chair of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee: Jurisdiction includes domestic policies, including matters relating to energy, labor, education, criminal justice, the economy, as well as the Office of National Drug Control.
This means that it is Kucinich who has the power to hold hearings and investigate every single executive department and agency in the federal government.
He will NOT be giving that up to tilt at windmills as an independent and subsequently retired member of Congress.
Huckabee is a nut case. The Republicans left to caucus last night for their party were the ones who voted for Huckabee. The rest of the party went over to Obama's camp and caucused for him. Otherwise Edwards would have won. Republicans want either Obama or Clinton to get the ticket. During Iowa's caucus party members are allowed to cross party lines. This was a planned strategy on the part of the Republican party. They know Huckabee will lose other states.
Headlines to hearten progressives on CD and others but not MSM : Dennis Kucinich Does a Lieberman and Goes Independent. WOOOW
The only Democratic stand I've seen:
We are not George Bush.
I agree. My vote is most likely to go to the candidate who demonstrates the moral courage to speak out honestly about the systemic problems facing democracy in America.
Kucinich & Edwards have, so far, been the most outspoken on most of these issues, in my opinion, neither has been outspoken Enough.
They also need to begin taking the News Media to task for Participating in and attempting to "Shape" the story instead of honestly reporting it in an unbiased manner. Too many "news reports" show such obvious bias that it becomes ludicrous. When reporters ask "Questions" which contain an embedded answer, that's not "Reporting". It's electioneering. And, if the rules were honestly enforced, would trigger the old fashioned "Equal Time" rules that the media corporations hate so much.
Thank you Helen for being one of the few honest REPORTERS left in America.
Democrats have already taken a stand. They voted to continue to pay for the colonial war and to stay in the pocket of the corporatocracy.
The tree of liberty has been flooded with the blood of patriots for too long, and now it's time to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants.
We love you, Helen Thomas!
Need to take a stand... Impeaching Cheney would be a good start… A real good start...
Unfortunitly, the person who demonstrated the moral courage to speak out honestly about the systemic problems facing democracy in America is a tall left handed Saudi.