"Honestly, there sure is a lot of pablum, pap, and poop coming out now, is there not? America with the runs!"

Well, what do you expect? Anyone who is talking the truth (Nader, Kucinich, Gravel, Paul) has been shut down by the same stinking duopoly which is supported by some of the more vocals right here on CD (we all know who they are).

We've been set up again, and we'll take it up the anus...again. Talk about poop!

As you have read in several comments above, Edwards is our man!!! He is the most "electable" against all of the Republican candidates. He is by far the only viable Democratic candidate who is not beholding to Big Business, Big Media, Big Pharma, Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner, the American Medical Association, etc., etc., etc. The media frequently dismisses him for lack of money but the truth of the matter is he has pledged to accept public financing and not to accept donations from lobbyest and corporations. He REFUSES to be beholding to them. Both Clinton and Obama have accepted corporate donations and thus will refuse to reject the hands that fed them. Obama is a fantastic motivational speaker. He truly knows how to make everyone feel good. He could help our image around the globe. In fact, he would make a fantastic Vice President in 2008. We have far too many problems here at home (the mortgage crisis where millions of people have already lost their homes and millions more expected to lose them in the next couple of years, loss of jobs due to outsourcing, the ever expanding income gap between the richest 1% of our population and everyone else, the price of gasoline and the huge profits the oil companies are making) etc., etc., etc. The list goes on and on. Friends, we must get our house in order. We have so many serious problems here at home that must be addressed before our country goes down the hill. Our current debt from our wars in the middle east is threatening our very livelyhood. Notice I have not even mentioned our problems around the world!!! I'm sure you know the hatred many countries feel toward us after seven years of Bushco. Please think about these issues as you decide the best candidate for the Presidency. John Edwards is the one who has promised to take our country back from the strangle hold of lobbyests and big business and give it back to "We the People". Edwards has a proven record of fighting these people in court and WINNING his cases. Edwards has promised to bring our troops home within his first year in office. Neither Obama or Clinton have made such a promise. Both of them have said the issue can be discussed. Edwards as President and Obama as Vice President is the best medicine for our country. But we must elect them now in 2008. After a term or two as Vice President, Obama will then be ready to assume the leadership of our country and our country will be in a far better position to welcome him.

> "as Nader acknowledged, he [Obama] has no progressive agenda."

You don't vote for an agenda. If you do, you won't get it. Even if you get the candidate, you can't hold him to his campaign promises.

By the same token, the fact that a candidate accepts contributions from someone proves nothing about what he will do in office.

You vote for candidates. You have to make your best judgments about who can win and what kind of people they are. You have to make your best guess as to what kind of policies they will try to implement.

If you want to know something about Obama, look at his history, going back to post-college days as a NYPIRG campaigner, on to post-Harvard Law days as a Chicago community organizer, on to days as an Illinois lawmaker sponsoring creative progressive legislation, to now.

This is a man with a strongly progressive agenda, but you won't see most of it detailed in his campaign lit or speeches. You'll get a better sense from reading about him

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

> "his message of unity = a message of giving into corporate rule."

No, his message of unity is the only way to gain a mandate strong enough to rule over the corporations.

> "Vote the Green Party! Stand up for what you believe in."

May as well not vote.

It's not about "what you believe in." It's not about you. It's about who is going to be the next President of the United States.

If you throw your vote away on an ineffectual, make-believe Green Party, and if you encourage others to do so, you are betraying what you believe in.

Especially this time around, when we have the prospect of such a great progressive president.

To all of those posting the eight comments before nader2000 - agreed.

I'm sure everyone her knows that several polls show Edwards would do much better against any of the Republican candidates that Obama or Hillary.

So, why the hell Edwards being Kucinich-ed by the party apratniks?

Draw your own conclusions.

perceptionexperiment is absolutely correct but I can't stand more Republican rule for the time being so I'm voting for Greens and Progressive Dems when I can.

What's going on here? S.1959 go through already??

"Oh, and I live in the South, so I can insult Southern redneck bigots with some authority." (sandyk77)

HA!

"One thing is for sure, though: unless serious changes are made soon, we're all in a lot of trouble." (ticonderoga)

Remember This!

good grief, Iowa is nothing.

Bill Clinton got 3% there and lost when he eventually won the white house.

It's still up in the air.

Only factors that may be different now are that Americans are more susceptible to media hype as this thread demonstrates.

Still love DK, Still rather have Edwards, but at least in a debate against any rep, Obama would look like he has the bigger balls, which may be a good thing. Don't get me wrong Obama is definitely the best public speaker if you fall for the emotionalism hype thing, which most Americans do.

We will see.

"Martin Luther King was the real deal." (Ramsay Mameesh)
Yes!

Jesse Jackson?
Barack Obama?
No!

Iowa means nothing. Dennis is still kickin ass. And Dennis is stil the only candidate, to speak the truth! Lets see if Eddie will hold up as well as Dennis when he gets Kucinich-ished.You think he has that much moxy? I presonaly don't think so. But thats just me. This thing is FAR from over. It's just gettin started. I'll look forward to reading these posts over the next few months. So go ahead and throw your vote away on Obamma, or Edwards, and don't count out Hilary, she's still here, and wounded, and I'll throw my vote to Dennis Kucinich. I STILL BELIEVE. Fair enough? Thanks Tex Yes COmarc, there are still some Dennis Die Hards here. I follow you here, on cd.

QUOTE: " Nader2000 January 5th, 2008 12:45 pm

If you are progressive and if you have a clue, you should be very, very happy right now.

Obama is is a genuine progressive who has moderated his positions somewhat to enable him to rise to this level, and has crafted a winning message of unity and hope ...."

BS! He's no progressive, certainly not in any truly good sense. People can superficially consider his likes to be progressive, but the term is "tricky" for it doesn't say whether the progress is in a good direction or a bad one, or how much of each. The world is presently accelerating on a progressively worse course, not a good one at all; people or an environment can progress towards greater or lesser peacefulness, righteousness, ..., or towards violent aggression, or from healthy to unhealthy, or the reverse; apartheid, as in Palestine today, is progressively worse; etc.

Progressive is a misemployed term, for it needs to be additionally qualified for the meaning to be clear. But idiots think that 'progressive', 'liberal', and 'conservative' can only mean what they claim these mean; neglecting that the terms can be used in either good, constructive senses, or bad one.

So Obama is progressive, but not to or for seriously educated people who are spined with righteous and firm principles. I don't trust sales people, politicians, lawyers, judges, etc., etc., etc. The trust must first be earned, and that's something that has NOT been provided by Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or most of the rest of candidates.

All three of those named candidates are in bed with the ruling elites; regardless of whether people like it or not.

Obama's a warmonger for totally unjustifiable war, the worst crime of all; short of being the commanders of such wars. His bla bla about not having sided with the criminal Congressional authorisation for recourse to war on Iraq is bs. His fully siding with totally criminal threats of war of aggression and hypocrisy on Iran blew away any credibility he could otherwise have been sanely granted with respect to his so-called 2002 views of opposition to the threat of war on Iraq.

Sane people know what such schmucks cannot be trusted, so they're certainly UNFIT for serving in public office; except for maybe industrial cleaning of public office buildings.

Leave it to Americans; they'll f*ck up EVERY ... damn TIME, the way Americans love to be and do. you can count on that.

No wonder why abstainers outnumber voters; not the total of voters, but the total of voters for each of the parties with a candidate running for election, yes. The abstainers therefore are in the truer majority.

And people should NOT count on the Guardian, UK, to be doing intelligent and honest reporting on this; it's not a particularly consistent news and views media in terms of good quality. It produces en masse bs, toxicity.

to COMarc.

I guess I am one of those Kucinich nuts..

Yeah.. the guy who is crazily trying to impeach Cheney as should be done .

Kucinich is the most progressive and honest politician of the lot! The most consistant too.

The fact is.. is that the corporate controlled media is dictating this election.. just like they always do. They don't want him to gain any power.. so they just censor him. Thus the low poll numbers.

No one hears him.. no one things he's viable. Voila.. He is out of the race.

Convenient how that works today isn't it?

And yet.. Folks like you .. fall for it hook line and sinker.

Our Democracy is in shambles. OUr elections are essentially rigged and controlled by the mainstream media.

The Sheeple can't think for themselves.. IF the media commentators and pundits say one thing.. that is THE WORD.. Don't ask Kucinich questions at debates.. ignore him.. Dismiss him… focus ONLY on who you want to get your money from. Gee.. that would be the Millionair producing candidates. Hillary and Obama!! Kucinich is using public financing.. no money there.. and is a threat to OUR status quo… we can't have that… well we will make him irrelevent….

and all us little thorns in the sides of YOU and the media and those who say that Kucinich is irrelevent.. Well too bad.. Kucinich may not become president because this election is rigged against him. but that doesn't mean he is going to go away. He knows how the game is played.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" Ghandi

OH and watch this excellent interview with Bill Moyers

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/profile2.html

CD...........There are times your system really sucks.

I REALLY want to like Obama. I was stirred and moved by his rhetoric. But aside from seeming like a nice, inspiring figure, he just doesn't cut it for me. I think he comes off like Bill Clinton. He's too dodgy on the issues and at times leans rightward. He's just not progressive enough. He think the right and the left should just hash out solutions over dinner. It's not going to happen. The Republicans for damn sure don't have the interests of the people in mind. The Dems SAY they do, but in the end, they don't differ a whole lot. Or they just compromise, worried more about bi-partisan support, suffering from iwanteveryonetolikemeevenmoniedelitistfatcatsitis.

Would I take him over any Republican? Yer damn right.

But would I take him over a true Democrat like Dennis Kuchinich? Nah.

But everyone thinks that Kuchinich is the "weird lookin' skinflint with the funny name." Some people are even writing him off because he said he believes in UFO's.

And I'm actually not surprised Obama won the Iowa Caucus. He has Oprah Winfrey backing him fer chrissakes! That's what it often seems to come down to. Money and exposure. Most people don't even seem to know who Kuchinich is. He's the best person for the job, and he's not getting enough airplay. It's so frustrating.

How can you compete with Oprah? CNN? The MSM? Who's electing these people anymore? Or are they being selected? It's all about who's being pushed and who isn't. Who's got the money and clout?

I wish I could give Dennis Kuchinich about 2 billion dollars. Or hell, if I had that kind of money, I'd run myself. I'm sure I could do better than the clownprince of crime in power right now. Or any of them for that matter!

The solutions are RIGHT THERE UNDER OUR NOSES! You do not have to have an IQ of 200 to see what's wrong with America and the world. If these public servants weren't so concerned about themselves and their clique, they take the necessary steps.

Eh,I'd never win, even with all the money in the world. I could imagine some Christian Fundie assasinating me for my taste in music, or maybe Ellen Goodman for that matter. I'm not black enough or white enough or toe the line enough. I'm too young, too bald. Didn't finish college. The media would be more concerned about my love life or lack thereof. The right-wing ogres would dig up every little thing they could on me. Me and my whole family would be put through the wringer and then the grinder.

And that's why ordinary people don't run. They don't have the money behind them, and when they do, and they actually want to do the right things, they get hit with a smokescreen and then beaten and shanked into submission. And that's if they can afford the entry fee.

It's all rigged. The Grand Pinball Machine is fixed.

Geez, look what they did to John Kerry. Look what they did to JFK. MLK? Medgar Evers? Nader?

I'm not suggesting that we all wave the flag and submit to the freakshow. But where are the real choices? When you do get a real option, they're deemed "unelectable" for whatever reason. They don't have the cash, the weight, the look, the right voice...

"His hair looks funny."

"She's bitchy."

"He had an affair ten years ago."

"Ooooh, too radical. Nuh-uh."

I love that one. TOO radical. As if achieving a true socialist democracy is somehow toxic, dangerous to 99% of Americans. As if Progress entails some sort of retribution, punishment, a subversion of all things people value. Like we want kids to kill their parents, people to wreak havoc, babies to be eaten, grandmas to be given heroin, churches to be razed...

All I want is social and economic justice. I want us to stop hating each other. I want the world to stop resenting us. I want to make it as easy as possible for people to have a decent and free life. I want our air and water to be clean. I want to stop our planet from burning. It's what most Americans want too.

Ranting again, sorry. I just don't know who to vote for. I keep seeing dead ends, walls that are too high to climb, or paths strewn with nails, hot coals, and broken glass.

a friend who is a Republican lawyer and who never before has agreed with my Democrat or liberal point of view- he said that he heard Obama speak and he said that it was the BEST speech he has EVER heard in his ENTIRE life!!!! candidates.

In Iowa a man of mixed race won although only 3% of the state are minority. That is because the nation likes to vote for a talented minority- we do not want another white man in the white house. Obama is a Constitutional Law Professor, community organizer, award winning author with his biography which touched our imaginiation. We ought to be grateful that he has arrived!!!

Stop your bithcing and get on board fwhen we have something good for once- celebrate and work for Obama. I am going down to my board of election and write a letter to those who are gettting absentee ballot and serving in Iraq and ask then to vote Obama- a real keeper!

Can someone explain to me (a white guy from Canada) why Mr. Obama is black?

His mother is a white woman from Kansas, and his father is from Kenya, and, presumably, black.

If, per chance, there is a black CommonDreams reader out there, answer these questions, please.

Does Mr. Obama look as white to you as he looks black to me? And would you refer to him as another white presidential candidate?

So there is no misunderstanding, I think it's high time we stop talking about skin colour. And I don't care if the next US president is male or female. But this time around, for the good of all humanity, please USA; elect someone with compassion, courage and brains. Being an atheist would be a bonus and a refreshing change.

Thanks.

george w. bush was crowned the king of oil.....barak obama may be on his way to being crowned the king of uranium .

I would like to be exploited by a man with more melanin please.

saw this coming last year , tried to warn people . all the smug people left of center , the same that have been raking their rightwing brothers over the hot coals of their votes for bush , are now beginning to experience a quandry of their own making with the monster of their own choosing ..good luck , god help us ....it would be more prudent if we didn't vote at all.

wood_boot-I would say he's biracial, but a lot of people don't like that term either.

Metamorph-Again, I want to like the guy, but to me, he's just not the ideal candidate.

Nader2000 sez "This is a man with a strongly progressive agenda, but you won't see most of it detailed in his campaign lit or speeches."

Then how do you explain articles such as these?

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/16/2561/

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/07/5687/

How is it "strongly progressive" to vote for more funding of the Iraq War?

That's my problem with him. He's not strong enough. I wish he was better.

nayoibi-Lord knows that smugness has annoyed me also. But is Obama the best canididate for progressive interests? He's questionable, just like most of the other Democrats.

Jesus, I want to vote for the guy. But damn, I just don't know if he'll do enough for working people, poor people, the environment and the end of the military/industrial complex.

BUT, Kucinich has now placed his support behind Obama! This should be explained by Kucinich, but his bases are probably of a sort that would be politically risky to publicly state; therefore, and realising this, he would not take this risk.

Well, I still don't vote based on that sort of undisclosed "insider" information. I don't tend to follow other peoples' "pipe dreams"; definitely not blindly.

And, so, we should dispense with govt altogether; maybe. Sounds like the better option to me anyway. But the Declaration of Independence never really was about [real] independence, neither.

For Obama to win in November, he will need a vice president with plenty of experience, would
anyone beat an OBAMA-GORE ticket?

Yeah, Edwards/Obama, Edwards/Clinton, Edwards/ Richardson, Edwards/Kucinich, Edwards/Paul, Edwards/Nader, Edwards/Brittany Spears,__ she gets more press than any of them.

I have heard an American Indian activist explain that since "progressivism" assumes that there is some lower form and some higher form, some white supremicist groups he had encountered talked about themselves as being progressive - more evolutionarily and culturally advanced than American Indians.

Progressive is an easy word to equivocate with.

RichM many good points, thanks.

So I guess, what is good for corporate america, is good for many posters on this site.

I guess many of you must be getting rich from the Iraq war? Do you own majority shares in Halliburton?

Do you own an insurance company and are building new homes with the money you are making on health Not care.

Oil, I guess many have oil on your land and are getting income from selling over priced oil to poor people who can't afford to have health care.

Oh I get it, you are saving money shipping jobs overseas so your company can compete globally.

Wait a minute, you are making a bundle on this phony war on terror by selling your latest spy technology to homeland security.

You sure are not part of the working class, so you all must be the ruling class. Will you always side with the ruling class when push comes to shove?

I'm elated at Obama's victory, but tired of hearing that he might become our first black president. My support for him has nothing to do with his race, just as my opposition to Clinton has nothing to do with her gender. Identity politics is polarizing and hurtful. Bush billed himself as a uniter and divided the country as never before. We need someone who can transcend group loyalties, and the media slapping labels on candidates doesn't help.

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html--if you're for Obama, make sure you've read this article. If you're not, read this article.
No self-respecting progressive should go another hour without reading this article.

Ramsay mameesh -- "The preceding story was brought to you by "Americans with Half a Brain". And is a tribute to all Common Dreamers, who have successfuly avoided vomiting their guts out, as they watch their fellow progressives (once again) take back their abusive Democrat spouse."

Ha !! Mameesh .. you never fail to make me laugh ! Keep it coming ...

RichM - "- In other words, you're betraying what you believe in by actually standing up for it."

You are spot on in your analysis.

lauren, the URL is not working. Try this, after you submit your comment and before you log out, check to see if the URL works. There is some time to go back and edit if you need to, usually.

Ramsey, I agree with gyptian, very funny.

"This fight is personal." John Edwards, January 5, 2008

Maybe Lauren is trying to link to Norman Soloman's recent article "Edwards Reconsidered":
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14656

Just a guess.

"Making sure we're listening to the American people." (pointing to John Edwards, indicating John Edwards is) Barack Obama, January 5, 2008

Barack Obama on the defensive as John Edwards commits to the middle class that "This fight is personal." January 5, 2008
(Barack Obama looking like Clinton; Bill Clinton.)

So what's changed? I blinked and must have missed it.

Yes indeed, politics may become very personal.

After Kucinich decided to drop the Obama-bomb, my faith in Kucinich was lost. I watched Kucinich on PBS to see if he could explain his reasons for Obama... and he actually dodged the question. I couldn't believe it.

Although I'll probably vote for Edwards, I don't think any real progressive should give him money. Why?

Well back in 2004 Kerry and Edwards had a chance to fight the results in Ohio. They instead betrayed us, remember:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1110-21.htm

If you still don't believe the vote was stolen, you need to read the Project Censored report:
http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html

Anyway if we give Edwards a ton of money, where does the money go? Directly to the corporate media for ads. I gave almost $2000 back in 2004 to have "anyone but Bush", but when Dems decided to back-down from their promise to "count every vote" I decided never to make the mistake again.

I'm glad everyone here sticks to their ideals. We got die-hard-Greens, Obama "Hopers", Edwards last-minute-populists, Kucinich believers... it's all good. As long as Bush leaves office in 2009 without pulling any State-of-emergency terrorist BS postponing the election, I'll be happy.

Mike Corbeil, last night on the Bill Moyer's TV news program, Kucinich said he did not endorse Obama. He said he just advised his supporters to support Obama, if he didn't make the 15% needed in the first round. One of his advisors said he made a deal with Obama. It might be Kucinich didn't want to have to fight it out in New Hampshire with Edwards, if Edwards had won the Iowa vote. He refused to explain why he did that.

It was obvious; John Edwards was sincere, Barack Obama wasn't.

Edwards wasn't even talking to him or anyone else, just the audience; it wasn't an attack; Obama reacted like it was; Obama was backpedaling, losing his legs.

Let's see what they (MSM, etc.) say tomorrow.

I sure don't want to see another Republican, any of them, especially Huckabee.

I see one thing coming, a lot of new Democrat Congress people and Senators.

Yes, I don't want them (Republicans) to do it right in front of my face.

I want them (Democrats) to do it behind my back with the correct rhetoric , so I won't notice it quite so much.

Judging by their positions on the issues (not their rhetoric or people skills) the four Democrats who debated tonight on ABC line up this way, from Left to Right:

Edwards, Richardson, Clinton, Obama

Edwards shuns lobbyist campaign cash, speaks frankly about taking on corrupting corporate power, and has been moving consistently to the left for the past several years as Ralph Nader's endorsement attests.

Richardson stresses diplomacy in his foreign policy and for that reason is to the left of Hillary, who unfortunately stresses military action.

Obama is more of a moderate Republican than a Democrat of any kind, and he unabashedly speaks about "giving stakeholders a seat at the table" (bowing to moneyed interests). Obama's rhetoric (all platitudes, all the time) apparently has many people fooled.

KEM, I watched that Moyers show last night, and your right, Kucinich refused to answer the question of why he asked his supporters to go to Obama instead of to Edwards. Even moyers said that Edwards views were more progressive and more in line with what Kucinich was saying.

Here's something interesting. I was watching the ABC New Hampshire debates, and when it was over the local station that had been covering them was going to give some time to Kucinich. Well, to make a long story short, as soon as Kucinich started talking about impeaching Cheney, all audio and video was lost and has not been restored.

I'm losing faith quickly in all Democrats. The most important question is, "Where does your money come from?" All three front runners, as others have shown in recent posts, are cashing in on corporate bribe money. Shame on Kucinich for handing his support to any of these three.

Edwards will convince me of his sincerity to fight corporate power when he stops taking their money. If Edwards were to do this and lose the nomination, then he would need to quit the Dems and join the third party movement against corporate rule. I'm not holding my breath.

Similar impressions here, Bob K.

Ginger, an Edwards/Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And after 8 years under Edwards as VP, Obama would be ready to take us the rest of the way.

I listened (couldn't watch) to the Moyers program also. I may have misheard it but I think Kucinich, when asked by Moyers about his Obama support, said "well it's personal". Did I hear that right? Obama, apparently, is known for his deal making. Maybe he offered Kucinich some Cabinet position should he become the Pres.

Obama, to me, looks a lot like a pseudo-progressive version of Ross Perot. Lots of words that strike a resonant chord, but not a drop of substance. "Hope is the bedrock of this nation" might as well be "Look at this chart here".

Kucinich? Ya know, I like what the man says, but observing his actions makes me think that his primary role is to prevent an exodus to the Green Party.

Hitlary or any Repug would be the new boss just the same as the old boss.

I guess that leaves Edwards as the potentially lesser evil.

Makes one wonder why we still call this stuff democracy.