You are far better than that DnG. Cummon bud.

We have just had a perfect example of DIS-information up there. One says Edwards did not attend the dinner. Another comes back and says, "Oh YES he did, blah, blah, blah." Then we hear the facts. But are they? Such things causes rumors and untruths to be spread. Some do it to Obama, Hillary, Edwards, all of them. When Kerry ran, the lies told about him were enough to fill the Grand Canyon. The Republicns are very well versed, in what they term "Rat Fu#$ing". I guess what we all really know is, don't beleve everything we read, unless we have seen it with our own eyes, or have a credible source.

Are there diebold voting machine's in New Hampshire?

I have to admit I am enjoying all the nonsense. Not that I'm above it I'm definitely a part of it. In truth I'm not going to be led anywhere by any of these politicians. Not one of them has a new idea. None of them can voice a new domestic and foreign policy paradigm. Not one BIG idea has been voiced that demonstrates inventive thinking or even creative thinking. Are we not beyond little ideas and old dead ends?

Here's what I would like to hear someone say:

Folks we suck. We are first class cheats, crooks, murderers, and social misfits dressed up in red, white, and blue. We believe in Christian rooted imperialism that has resulted in untold millions of purposful deaths so that we might live in wealth and splendor. We have over 750 military bases throughout the world and we scare the ever lovin' shyt out of everyone else. We are world class nuclear sociopaths and our leaders are in a wealth induced and ego induced denial. Our god tells us that we have absolute dominion over the world. Bullshyt! Wake up, we suck! The more money you have the more you suck. God thinks we suck too. Everybody thinks we suck. I suck so bad I want to lead you suckers. So how do we get from such monumental suckers to a better place? I don't have a freeking clue! Vote for me...

Even from my unenthusiastic and curmudgeonly perspective, I'm appalled by the writhing doublespeak-- or doublesee-- of the contradictory claims that on the one hand, Iowa and NH are just the "first steps" in a year-long process vs. the fact that John Edwards has been, or is being, "disappeared" by the media.

I've already heard several abecedarian offhand dismissals from local and national teevee infotainwhores, to wit: Edwards didn't do well enough in Iowa to keep the money flowing; Edwards is therefore mortally wounded, will drop out sooner or later, and it's now "really" a two-candidate race.

The "smart" people have already written off Edwards. And then there's Obamamania. There's a less-publicized rule of news/opinion broadcasting that is just as universal as "if it bleeds, it leads": any mass "mania" phenomenon is pounced upon and amplified by the consent manufacturers. "Media" and "mania" are only a vowel and a consonant apart-- practically fraternal twins.

So, overnight, Edwards is reduced to a dim shadow, already blotted out by the fierce and blinding glare of the charismatic Human Sparkler, Obama.

Al Gore and dlp67 are right.

The Obama campaign committee is very, very, good.

Read the novel, The Ninth Wave. They are following that script.

As much as I would love to see a woman president, not this woman.

KEM, get real.

Obama is a winner, and he is going to be the greatest president since FDR.

This is a great day in America!

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE CAFE AU LAIT.

The public is a whole lot wiser than most politicians think. We were wise in 2006, and our 'handlers' thought they could pull the wool over for another two years. Not gonna happen. I am loving seeing democracy raise its head around this country as the press finds itself having to actually cover such events. Be proud, Americans, you are still out there.

We deserve better analysis of politics than this nonsense.

Being a Kucinich supporter, a Democrat trying to put the party back on it's path, I don't buy Obama's version of change.

I am glad however that it appears that Hillary is being pushed aside where she belongs, though all three of the "top tier" candidates would have to be watched extremely closely if elected, extremely close if we are to champion true progressive values.

Hillary has got to be worried. 57% of 30 and under voters went for Obama compared to 11% for Hillary. Her hawkish voting record shows she is not much different from Bush.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=265730

Hillary "I see imaginary people" Clinton booed.

Sweet!

Obama should thank Michael John Hamdani for opening our eyes to what kind of person Hillary really is.

So should Edwards actually.

Should I assume, after reading the article, that Edwards was not booed?

--------------

I wonder if Obama's groupies have seats at the debate later today.

Isn't this the same Obama who wooed AIPAC and supported Liebermann (who endorsed McCain) in 2006?

Same ol' same ol'.

HRC got a problem. The more people know her, the less people like her. Her poll numbers drop as soon as she goes campaigning on the ground.

She is "so ready to lead" but unfortunately the Americans is not "so ready to follow".

Obama is of this time while Hilary is of the past decade (and a boomer). As one born in the year that cleaves the Baby Boom & Bust (1964), I can go either way. I choose to go with the future as my attitudes are more in line with my younger comrades: race is not important, tech savvy, cosmopolitan, gender and sexual orientation fairness as a value, etc. Obama projects this much better without being the betee noire of the looney tune right wing.

Hillary is pro war all of the time. She's a corporate shill. She's in AIPAC's pocket. No way would I ever vote for her. Obama's too pro war to suit me.

EDWARDS 2008

Hillary saw imaginary people because it was the popular thing to do at the time. She just went too far when she went on live TV and told everybody exactly where these five people (who never existed) crossed the border from Canada into the US.

Hillary follows the trends but she doesn't set them. You give her a poll that says that Americans prefer walnut icecream guess what she will announce at her next TV interview.

Booing Hillary before a televised debate is meant to put her off her game. We know that already.

It was a cheap shot, but it wasn't Obama who did it either - officially.

The picture of Hillary reminds me of an old skit by 22 minutes. To make fun of the "Vagina Monologues" they had a skit called "The Penis Dialogues" which consisted of Rick Mercer going up to politicians and asking "how big is it" - and you caught on pretty quickly that he was asking the female politicians how big a baby mouse is (when one gave extra details) and male politicians about something much larger.

Talk about "Get Real!" Obama isn't 1/10 of what FDR was. I'd like to see him take on the NY Power and Light Corporations as FDR did during the 20th century's first bout with free market rapism. Given his overt timidity when confronted with entrenched power, his constituents would have been big losers.

Someone yesterday made the observation that Obama is like a balloon--There's nothing inside, other than a DLC tabula rasa.

I am a Kucinich fan. Kucinich encouraged his supporters, if he didn't fair well in Iowa, to look to Obama. Why? I trust Kucinich and feel he must know something. Any thoughts? Also, I thought I saw Rocky Anderson standing next to Madeline "yes, I believe the Iraq sanctions were worth the deaths of the Iraqi children" Albright at the Clinton rally. I hope I was mistaken.

You won't see John Edwards name mentioned in the press or media if they can help it Vaudree.

They don't want him, "They" are the ones who control the press.

Yup Paul the game is rigged I wonder when people will get this.

Nader2000: Obama is a winner, and he is going to be the greatest president since FDR.

He might be a winner with his suporters (duh!), but there is no way the American people are going to elect a black guy who's middle name is Hussein. I mean, come on...

Alan Nairn, investigative reporter, was on Democracy Now! last Tuesday, and he has been researching who the principal advisers are to the various candidates.

Barak Obama's principal foreign policy adviser, according to Nairn, is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the worst warmonger on the Democratic side of the past third century. He was calling for a new Pearl Harbor before the Project for a New American Century, and in his 1998 book, The Grand Chessboard, he argued that as the sole "superpower" it was our destiny to control the oil of the Caspian basin, which, by the way, is the real reason for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the threats to Iran. The U.S. imperialist clique imagines they can dominate south Asia and take the oil of the Caspian basin, and to fulfill this mistaken, doomed strategy, they have our young men and women in indefensible positions in the remote desert crags and canyons of Afghanistan, with the goal of building and protecting an oil pipeline to transport Caspian oil through Pakistan to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.

Not only are these people evil, they are idiots. The actual lesson of the Great Game, and this used to be accepted as fact, is that no matter how big or powerful, no outside power can dominate the areas of the big mountains of south Asia. The geography is just too difficult. Outsiders are universally despised, and will always be driven out in the end. It happened to the Brits and the Russians and it will happen to the U.S. imperialists.

But the military contractors and C.I.A. connected heroin dealers are making billions off the blood of our children and the blood of the Afghans and Iraqis, so more billions are appropriated and thousands upon thousands continue to die.

There are roughly 300 million people living in the area the Imperialists are foolishly trying to dominate. The Chinese are next door, and have already built a pipeline to tap Caspian oil. The Russians have a pipeline.

Cheney and the boys might as well forget about it. They have already lost.

And if Obama is listening to Zbigniew Brzezinski, he will stupidly lead us down the same disastrous path we are blundering along already.

You're so right, KEM. With the corporate media it's Hillary vs. Obama, song without end -- never mind that in polling matchups of GOP vs. Dem candidates, Edwards WINS more handily than any other Democrat against any of the GOopers.

Yeah HEAVYRUNNER, and when rats are trapped or losing, they can be very dangerous.

ADELE, I watched several news programs yesterday and last night till the wee hours. I saw fifty ads for Head On, apply directly to the forehead and heard John Edwards name mentioned one time. __ ONCE. It was Hilary/Obama/Huckabee. Did see a good interview with Ron Paul, the first time I ever had a good look at him on TV. Liked what he said.

Hey, can you imagine being married to Hillary and having to spend the night with her after the booing. __ Oh my God.

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.

I am tired of these paranoid, ignorant, low level comments so typical of where this country has arrived. there is no point waving the flag it represents a lot that is bad in the world. Like the Roman empire for all the good it has done it has been matched by the evil. Like Rome it will founder the great days of thought, ethics and fairness are over.

Mr. Gore Vidal, has so rightly said what is so wrong with this country, and its media conglomerates! Wolf Blitzer one of the glaring examples of its distorted ideas and a person who has no right to shape public opinion. He shows ignorance as a virtue for all the world to see, an example of what is considered by too many in America, a concern for rectitude and fairness.

Mr. Kucinich one of the examples of what America could be, a great example of what the congress should be, and is denied exposure because he shows the media for their facile, empty ideas that have little substance. He points up how they dumbs down the electorate! he brings a truth and fairness that media sold out long ago since they are nothing more than the television moguls voice and do their bidding as required. They have sold their souls long ago!

Welcome to American politics and their values as represented by the useless thinking of the American media. Between Russet's baseball questions and Blitzers right wing empty questions, we begin to understand some of the reasons why the American public is considered empty by Europeans standards.

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!

RE: - You won't see John Edwards name mentioned in the press or media if they can help it Vaudree.

You will if he comes in first or second again in NH. Here's hoping.

So it is the Hockey game on TSN and then the debate on ABC. I'm not going to get too much work done today.

For those that criticize the FCC - why don't you just eliminate it and go with the CRTC!

He might be a winner with his suporters (duh!), but there is no way the American people are going to elect a black guy who's middle name is Hussein. I mean, come on…

***worth repeating.
The lefties have to think about things outside their own experience. How would someone in a red neck state regard him?

Edwards is a better shot than either Obama or Clinton against a standard republican candidate.

But if he was the nominee the media would ravage Edwards even more than they already do.

President Huckabee has a certain ring to it.

I know how to lead! I can lead! Leading is the first thing I would do! GO KUCINICH

There is a lot of room for education. We need to teach as many people as possible to be aware of what the corporate media is doing. In fact, what we really need is an electorate that is so well educated in these matters that they automatically know that the candidate that's running all the paid ads and who is getting all the fawning corporate press coverage is exactly the candidate that they should NEVER vote for. We need an electorate that automatically knows that the candidate they see on tv is exactly the candidate that will screw them over in favor of their corporate backers if in office. And that the candidates they need to support will be the ones who only get negative coverage, precisely because they are the ones who if in office will look out for the people and possibly not add to the corporate bottom line.

The part that really has me puzzled is that so many people out here always seem surprised that the corporate media isn't pushing their non-pro-corporate candidate. Duh!

And just once I'd like to see a progressive campaign try to do some of this larger education effort that's needed rather than just focusing on their narrow campaign interests. This is bedrock type stuff that needs to be done to challenge corporate power.

Only if he comes in first Vaudree. Even then, I can see the big news will be Obama and Hillary and how Huckabee did. Wait and see.

With Hillary in there, John Edwards has to split the vote of those who don't favor Obama with her. The same is true if Edwards wasn't in the race, Hillary would have won in Iowa. Of course she or Obama can't beat a Republican, Edwards can. Obama got 38% of the Iowa vote, There were 63% who didn't want him. Hillary and Edwards split that vote, Edwards came in second and Hillary gets the press.

RE - But if he was the nominee the media would ravage Edwards even more than they already do.

They'll do that to Obama as well if he was the nominee - it goes with the territory. Though, in Hillary's case, if Bill can get an article pulled out of a magazine, he has the power to protect Hillary from a certain amount of that.

RE - President Huckabee has a certain ring to it

Then Huckabee can come to Canada and actually get to see this "National Igloo" he congradulated us on way back when he was a governor.

Got to "Week of February 14, 2005" and click on

"Video: Monday Report salutes Canada's Women In Parliament."

http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/backissues.php?season=2

Again, Duh! The media is going to ravage the Dem nominee no matter who it is.

I heard the same nonsense 4 years ago. Then it was the BS that the media would be kind to Kerry because he was a war vet. That would deflect all the nasty attacks and force them to treat him with respect. How'd that work out for ya?

The corporate media is always going to favor the Republicans because no matter how pro-corporate the Democrats are, the Republicans will always be more so. We've seen this silly dance where the Dems keep moving right thinking that's the answer to their narrow minded dreams of power, then the Republicans just move further right and still call the Dems socialists.

Of course, during the primaries the corporate media will favor the most pro-corporate of the Dem candidates. Call that their plan B. If they have to lose, they want to lose to someone who's as pro-corporate as possible. But the constant trend is that the candidate that seems to get the nice pro-corporate media coverage in the primaries gets turned on in the november elections. It always happens. And watching the Dems get surprised by this every election is getting to be like watching Charlie Brown trying to kick the football Lucy is holding.

If you try to pick a nominee that the pro-corporate media won't ravage, it ain't gonna work.

What a load of crap. Why is this on Common Dreams?

John Edwards didn't attend the dinner.

He was hanging out with real people who couldn't afford to pay $500 for a plate of cardboard food.

COMarc--You're right about educating voters; it's an education that ought to be constant, not just in election years. Some of this is done in the blogosphere, and some even happens in colleges, when one has an enlightened PolySci prof and an active, intelligent group of students. This is something we should be mindful of and try to express when commenting on other blogs.

Obama will be the Kennedy of the 21st century. His election to the presidency will give the rest of the world that the USA is still the beacon of Democracy "where everybody is somebody"
My faith in the American system will be restored after Vietnam,the Balkan States, Iraq, Afgahanistan, Somalia and the other irresponsible American adventurism in the World.

'What a load of crap. Why is this on Common Dreams?'

Big Joe, I'm with you on this one. I'd rather read something more meaningful here, like an article titled 'Hillary Poo Pooed at Pink Taser Party' Unbelieveable that this level of nonsense passes as commentary anywhere, let alone on a liberal site.

I just don't think Dennis has the animal magnetism or is the father figure that Americans want in a president.
Yes he has most of the right answers and I have supported him even in the last election but it was the same thing... "I am the only one for this and that" great, but if after all these years he is still saying the same things with not much support with the result making all his good causes that we want seem unattainable because he keeps reminding us that he is the only one.

I think much of his support comes also that he is non threatening in appearance and many folks who are for peace like that and wish they could persuade the rest of America that we should all want the little guy in the White House.

Dennis is a damn good Congressman, but I wish he would drop out of the race and try to be a leader in Congress and hammer at all the investigations and his own impeachment bills.

That would be the sign of a good revolutionary, but his dream of being Prez is wasting all of our time now.

Huckabee to me is not the father figure either... kind of the nutty Uncle figure.

andyman, loved your comment: (Edwards didn't attend the dinner because he was hanging out with real people who couldn't afford $500 for a plate of cardboard food!)

vaudree, hoping isn't enough! If we want Edwards to come in first or second in NH we have to donate some money NOW -- remember, he's not swimming in corporate cash like the rest of the field (which is why he's the one candidate who will really bring change).

Classic line from "Rosemary Baby"...

"they are all...WITCHES"

One more thing... lots of folks expect the candidates to get more specific ... like Dennis.

My Buddy Phil Ochs had a Reagan script for victory in his closet that his Sister showed me and it said the way to win is not to talk details and hot issues because it gives people too many reasons to question and not vote for you.

I know it is not right but we are humans with all the weaknesses... the repubs use this knowledge and similar weaknesses of our nature to their advantage and most politicians who win know these rules.. Sorry but it is true.

Edwards WAS at this dinner. I heard Andrea Mitchell of NBC report on it. She said Hillary got a "polite response." No mention of the booing. Edwards was very well-received. But Obama, she said, "got the rock star treatment."

Now WHY did these clowns who wrote this article not even mention Edwards? This guy came in second, he is very much still in the race, and they continue to act like he's not there.
Incredible!

Another incident: the day before the Iowa primary, Chris "Gasbag" Matthews doing his usual corporate schtick made a comment that there was one presidential candidate who "doesn't even read the newspapers. Who is this clown, anyway. We'll let you know right after the break." And as the show begins to break for a commercial, a clip of Edwards talking to some supporters comes up...leading the viewer to believe that this "clown who doesn't read the newspaper" is Edwards. But it wasn't!!! It was that weasel HUCKABEE!

I am so disgusted.

Thanks for the explanation about Edwards. I wondered if it was just more of the same old Radio Silence (unless of course John gets a haircut, then it's all haircut, all the time.)

A good friend of mine, a Scottish virtual socialist, just wrote an email explaining her excitement about Obama. That depressed me. Never mind that Obama has no plan to remove the troops (unlike Edwards), supports the Robert Rubin Hamilton project (more neoclassical pro-globalization), and ultimately supported his "mentor" Lieberman in the Lamont/Lieberman race,

I lost heart with Obama during the Scalito nomination fight. Kerry and Kennedy had actually mounted a filibuster against the nomination (and imagine, the world DIDN'T end when that tool was used by a Dem. Amazing). They had garnered dozens of votes. Then on the Sun. before the vote, Obama went on the Sun. talk shows to speak out AGAINST the wisdom of the filibuster. I couldn't believe that the Rising Star with Mucho Political Capital had decided to finally expend it to make sure that Scalito got in. To make matters worse, when the vote actually occurred, he voted against Alito and FOR the filibuster! Why? Because that way he'd have a record that, well, despite all the talk, he actually voted for the filibuster (of course, by that time he'd help assure it would fail).

Contrary to his smooth, non-politician persona, this guy out-machiavellis Bill Clinton himself. You gotta admit, the guy's smart.

But, as Nader acknowledged, he has no progressive agenda. As usual, I imagine that a majority of Dems will be satisfied with the non-GWB candidate. But do they really think that a majority of this country--that TWICE almost voted in the most fascist pres. in our history--would vote for a black guy named Obama Hussein?

Al Gore's right. Reason has disappeared from our political discourse.

John Edwards did not attend the event. His wife, Elizabeth, did.

Transcript on My Direct Democracy: "Edwards is not coming. Apparently he feels this event is too much of a bigwig event."

http://mydd.com/story/2008/1/4/191135/2167

Many other sources . . . he held a town hall meeting instead.

Another endorsement as to why he remains my candidate of choice.

Another reason why he remains my candidate of choice.

booing hillary is more of a negative comment by obama supporters about obama supporters than it is a statement about hillary.

it has been a wild ride to witness the people , republican , democrat , independent , progressive , all walks of persons, that have all come down on hilliary , as hard as any lynch-mob , one could imagine. reminds of some other time and some other place... hmmm , now where and when was that ? my gut instinct , tells me that hilliary has been pretending to be one of the 'bad' guys , so she could slip in their front door , so that she would be in a position to help us. just the sheer volume and variations of your mob-like hissing , jeering and booing....alerts the very depths of my soul , that hilliary was one of the avatars posing as one of the oppressors , and was really one of the good guys , so that she might live to ease our collective pain. (but then again i could be wrong, if my gut feelings are having an off-year)

". . .the way to win is not to talk details and hot issues because it gives people too many reasons to question and not vote for you." --Jim Glover

Jim's point is important to keep in mind. Most politicians will deliberately remain as vague as they can get away with. This is especially true for Obama, he will--and should, if he wants to get elected--avoid looking too liberal and too pro-African American.

I think it's a mistake to put any great stock in what a candidate says on any given issue (e.g. W in 2000; humble foreign policy, my ass) I think it makes more sense to get a feel for what kind of judgment (s)he will exercise.

It's also worth remembering that in 1960 Kennedy campaigned on the "missile gap" that Republicans had allowed to occur.