Kem you just can not become President because you come up with a catchy slogan with the word "change" in it.
If Obama is so much for change why didn't he ever lead a fillibuster against the GOP and the bully decider for anything?

Hillary deserves what she gets as she never puts out any decisive opinions that are nothing more than rhetoric. And there's her husband calling attention for all to notice that he will be there to help. She just doesn't seem to be a good bet any longer and forget the message that she carries the baby boomers because we baby boomers are a lot smarter in politics than others give us credit. And Obama? Who is this upstart? And why doesn't he come clean on just where he stands on all important issues? Just because he's young, he's not another Kennedy. And I question his playing his Jesus card. Hope we hear more from Edwards. I was for Kucinich until I heard he was promoting Ron Paul. I can't think of one candidate for either party who is a scholar of American History and who has a definite and workable plan to overhual the present Administration that is filled with corrupted appointees. And what is their answer to whether they will investigate and force the Bush Ad. to answer for their crimes.

RE: - The attack on Hillary is a well timed media scam

Yeah? Of course it was. And it was Obama supporters. If Hillary had not been deflated a bit already from coming in third in Iowa, why try it hours before a televised debate! The purpose of the booing was not so much to convince us that Hillary was unpopular (though it was a bit of that too) but to throw her off her game so she was more apt to make mistakes during the debate.

And Edward's strategy - to set the agenda on the need to get corporate smooching out of the White House and to protect Obama from Clinton's attacks.

Everyone says that Obama will do even better in States with large Black populations - but haven't Bush done everything he could to disinfranchise as many Black voters as possible in the last few years?

RE: - If any of them told you what they REALLY want to do, they couldn't get elected.

Of course they want to avoid being as specific as possible so that voters can read what they want into their messages. But there is another factor at work, it is still early in the game and the field is just starting to narrow. The next debates will be threesomes so there may be a push for more specifics.

RE: - It's not Café Au Lait you're smellin', it's the kool-aid you're drinkin'.

I think we can tell the difference - more caffeine. You would be better off looking up the DSM-IV criteria for caffeine intoxication.

I wonder what Jim Jones's son is doing today. He was at a sports tournament when everyone else was at home drinking the Koolaid.

RE: - One more bad day for her and we'll publicly hear what a foul mouth Hillary is.

No you won't! The FCC and Bill won't let you. Not unless you turn to Canadian TV. On Newsworld, not only to they let you hear the politician swear unbleeped, they even have it captioned so that the hard of hearing don't miss out.

Agree that this is the strategy that a Hillary trying to come from behind is almost guaranteed to shoot herself in the foot in the process. I think that is what Edwards is counting on.

And didn't Edwards do higher than he polled in Iowa?

RE: - I want to hear the candidate with vision who proposes to eliminate or modify the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the Military Commissions Bill. And who will propose "Single Payer" health insurance.

All makes sense. But what is the Military Commissions Bill and who wanted it impliamented?

RE: - the "new politics" of democratic party insiders loosing their etiquette by booing.

Is it any less childish to refuse to address Canadian or British parliament (as is the tradition) unless one can be guaranteed a standing ovation?

RE: - Andrea Mitchell showcased "a lifelong Republican, who twice voted for George Bush, now canvassing for Obama" as a "precinct captain" in Iowa.

I think that this is a definition of a "spy" - of course she has changed and has seen the light and it is Obama - but the Repugs now know everything that Obama's campaign is up to. Repugs don't really want to lose their voters to Obama - but I think they would prefer him to the other to in the Presidential debate.

They do that in Canada too - people from other parties coming in and being as helpful as possible in order to be given more responsibility. The trick is to get as much work out of them as possible without letting them know too much or be in position to do too much damage.

Who did Oprah (sp?) vote for last election?

Personally, I think that various people see Obama as clay and plan to mold him into their own policies - and that Obama really hasn't made these decisions for himself yet.

Read these two articles. It was also reported in the McLaughlin Report, Republicans are caucusing and voting for Obama, Obama himself stated that Lieberman was his mentor.
Sorry, folks, voting for Obama is supporting the same regime.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/01/03/nbc-highlights-life-long-republican-caucusing-obam...

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/06/republicans_for_obama_cont.html

1. to comment-ers, when you mention Edwards, we will assume you mean John, not Elizabeth. Sorry, you're not getting around that.

2. John Edwards wans't there, then he was, then he wasn't??? Thanks to those who fact checked, maybe CD can though you some cash for doing their job....

I've come to treat CD articles and OpEds the same as M$M, and to analysize, research and verify any of the CD writer's claims. Yes, CD actually reports on information that I consider relevant, as opposed to M$M... but most of the articles here are OpEds, and some seem to be missing a few editors.

All in all, I go to this site frequently, and manage to send them a few dollars from time to time.

So, hopefully participation and debate are still welcome from CD staff to us readers, and hopefully that can strenghten this site's progressive reporting.

I also get the feeling that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Obama supporters who are mostly young and the younger you are the louder you are (just ride the bus), and the "new politics" of democratic party insiders loosing their etiquette by booing. Or young people just think it's acceptable to boo. So, to sum up... I couldn't tell you who was louder or ruder- profesional campaigners or college students.

Then there was a mention to an article that did not report any booing, which will lead to my next comment....

I voted my mail-in presidential ballot in 2004 while standing in front of 150 of the smartest college students here in China. They had never seen a ballot or experienced the decisions we in the United States have to make when casting our vote.
I will return to the USA in July of 2008, missing the Olympics here, but in time to register and vote in the election.
From here, I am not excited about anyone. It seems that only about 2% of what is being said by the candidates is related to the responsibilities of the office or provide any real insight concerning the serious issues we face in the states.
I'm working on a decision but so far, it won't be easy.
For the record, the Chinese students do not like George Bush.

One more bad day for her and we'll publicly hear what a foul mouth Hillary is. Get ready to cover your ears and hide the children from the TV. Once she gets going, she'll blister the wallpaper. Ask anyone who has taken her vitriolic abuse in Arkansas and DC.

Yes Obama has captured the youth movement, but Edwards has substance.

I want to hear the candidate with vision who proposes to eliminate or modify the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the Military Commissions Bill. And who will propose "Single Payer" health insurance.

C'mon Edwards, that's your cue for victory.

Hillary Clinton Inc. bought and paid for by corporate interests?

Barack the Obama-nation, conservative democrat that republicans favor?

I have too much money, I don't have anything better to do Romney?

McCain?

Dracula Juliani - nuff said...

Hmmm, I guess we need to really get this Ron Paul guy some kind of 'write in' campaign going for November.

sophia1729: Kucinich's response, via email, for endorsing Obama in Iowa...

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

Nader2000,

It's not Café Au Lait you're smellin', it's the kool-aid you're drinkin'.

"Change." "We all work together to make a great America."

Makes a great new narrative, doesn't it Tired of all that doom and gloom about War and the dollar tanking, murder and torture? Let's CHANGE it! -- by not TALKING about it!!

Ah, yes, makes us all feel good. Just what America has been waiting for. In the midst of all our trials and tribulations, when allies lose trust in us, as jobs flow overseas, as officials peer into our email and calls, we should stand up, hold hands, and call for Change.

Let's not waste our pretty little minds talking about PROBlems. Let's all work together, because Obama says so. isin't it great. Haven't we just been waiting for the right person to come along and tell us we can DO it, and it will be asy if we only try...

...When you wish upon a star, makes no difference... oh, sorry, I got carried away.

The court system has not been tampered with, the Constitution is doing fine without its Bill of Rights, Half the country wants to build a Wall to keep out Mexicans but a protected corridor to let in their drivers. We'll fix healthcare by making insurance Mandatory (Why didn't we think of these things sooner?)

R U nuts?

America IS under attack. By Americans. For years not only our courts, laws and treasury has been under assault, so has the very balance of powers, and the Constitution itself is being destroyed along with its built-in Defense Mechanism, Impeachment), which is being ignored and cheapened. We have a submissive enabling Congress that pays no attention to those who vote for it, funds unnecessary murder and mayhem in the name of democracy and security, and makes no mention of any of the above and other abuses of our system.

We have what amounts to a circus-like atmosphere surrounding an eerily-prolonged and distorted primary election season that puts and removes candidates from our television screens by some secret magic formula, and parades those candidates in our living rooms without them ever addressing ANY of the most pressing issues (see above) of our time.

And you, Nader2000, think it's "morning in America all over again" because Obama says it's time for change????!

What change, I might ask? Hmmmm? Ending the war funding? Impeachment? Guaranteed insurance like Congress gets? Hey, this "Change" thing could be pretty good!

Faith based politics is a flat-earth model easily remedied with specifics. Message: If any of them told you what they REALLY want to do, they couldn't get elected. Why not? Isn't that what an election is for? Who is going to do what to whom and with what result? Let's have a fight over it...

But they won't. "Vote for me because I inspire you to (false) hope and I have a pretty smile and I never want to upset anyone for any reason so we can all be happy and you can go back to sleep, while we sing together as we slave together on Master's plantation to make the world a better place for Master."

Yeah. I saw that movie already. Clinton's second term as governor (after he got his ass kicked by the Corporations) and for two terms as POTUS.

There's no pony in there.

Peace.

The attack on Hillary is a well timed media scam; and most of the half-wit "Left" is falling for it. Pathetic. Obama is an empty suit. But, if you want him, go ahead and nominate him. But remember, he still has to face the republicans. Let's see if you're all crowing and cheering in about 10 or 11 months. Nitwits.
jp

As far as the boos while Hillary was speaking were obviously plants from the Obama or Edwards camp, no Class, no class at all! Ya gotta wonder why the media thought WE would think otherwise!
Go ALL the way Hillary!!

On the contrary KERRY D, If you knew me, you would know that I adore women and want very much to see a good female president. I believe it would do us a lot of needed good. What I wrote about Hillary in a jesting manner, is how I percieve her reactions could be, not all wemon. Don't take such comments personally and don't assume.

And yes, I have written far worse about George W. Bush.

In RE:Obama I'm Sorry, but anyone who doesn't show any respect for the Pledge of Aliegence in his own country for which he is campaigning for the highest office; is not getting one bit of respect from me. It is said he made a statement that he was going to staff the White House with his own people. Does this mean he's going to staff it with Black Muslims, since hes purported to be a Muslim?

RE: President Huckabee has a certain ring to it.
RE: Huckabee to me is… kind of the nutty Uncle figure.

In the "Values Voter" debate, Huckabee's performance confirmed for the Religious Right audience that he shares their views on a range of issues. On marriage, he said he would lead an effort to pass a constitutional amendment affirming marriage as "one man, one woman, for life." On abortion, he needled the missing candidates and said "on this issue, our culture rises or falls." He backed the Iraq war, calling it a "theological war" against people "whose religious fanaticism will not be satisfied until every last one of us is dead, until our culture, our society, is completely obliterated from the face of the earth."

In the yes or no segment of the debate, Huckabee pledged himself to a long far-right wish-list, including:

* support for ousted Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore's court-stripping bill to keep federal courts from meddling with public officials who use their office to promote religion;
* vetoes of hate crimes legislation, ENDA (anti-discrimination law), and the fairness doctrine;
* stripping schools of federal funding for exposing children to "homosexual propaganda"; repealing IRS restrictions on churches endorsing candidates;
* bringing back Bush's social security privatization plan;
* imposing a ban on federal funding for any U.S. group that performs or advocates for abortion;
* boosting federal abstinence spending to match contraceptive funding.

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

Kane51 is right:Huckabee is a weasel!
A very dangerous weasel.

So, it's still between Obama, Clinton and Edwards ... not enough mention of Bill Richardson, who deserves a closer look ... though some think he's a potential VP candidate with Obama ... but in his own right?

Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake City's progressive mayor, offers a perspective in his support of Richardson, in The Nation. Link is:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/anderson

What does anyone know about Fortress Investment Group? Nothing on it on rabble. CBC and CTV only mention it in relation to Michael Jackson.

Is Nader accusing Edwards of gambling or of insider trading? If we have a bank account, we are involved in the Sub Prime thing - though I am not sure about Credit Unions.

I think I need more info.

It is worrying, but compared to the others?

RE: - you will know that four of the seven medications being prescribed to and for that person are to combat the effects of the other three. so much for big pharma and their lack of control over the health concerns of our population, as well as for a cure for cancer. or ms, or parkinsons, or i digress.

Well, of course - they spend more money marketing their drugs than they do making them (as was reported recently).

Drug makers spend more on marketing than research: study

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/01/03/drugs.html

They are also more concerned with finding a cure for ED than for MS because those with ED tend to have more money. And then there is the practice of ever-greening where they develop a drug slightly different than an existing drug and start marketing it as a "break-through" because the patent is about to expire on the old drug.

RE: - if you think tax breaks and back room deals aren't having an impact on this country, then maybe you aren't aware of cheney's back-room energy meetings,

Personally, if Karlheinz Schreiber says he knows nothing about Cheney, I would presume that he was lying.

KEM PATRICK's misogynistic comment,

"Hey, can you imagine being married to Hillary and having to spend the night with her after the booing. __ Oh my God." shows that hatred/fear of women crosses all political lines.

Kem, would you even dream of making such a comment about any male presidential candidate? Get honest with yourself about and DO something to change it.

Print media and public radio are my favorite sources for learning about our presidential candidates. In my younger years, I often wondered why my favorite president Thomas Jefferson spoke with such dichotomy in terms of newspapers:

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

and

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

Now I truly understand.
One certainly must possess much wisdom to sort all this out. And is there one I can really trust to be at the helm of our precious republic? Should I choose as the old adage suggests, to just "vote for the lesser of the two evils?" Did evil ever really save anything or anybody? I think not.
Let's pray that the nation that claims to trust in God pleads that God has mercy on us all...

definitely hillary has been bought by aipac. the question is: is there anybody who will not ultimately have to do aipac's bidding?
jimmy carter thinks that going against aipac's wishes is political suicide.
that's one reason kucinich is going nowhere.

The dream team. Gravel and Kucinich.
The most devastating force in american elections, are those damn machines, with no paper trail. This is so obvious, it hurts.

clearly, comments posted here before last nite's "debate" have an unfair disadvantage. so do some of those posted after the debate.

however, anyone with a brain, tuning in to that debate knows several things. edwards won that particular round. now, if he can channel that enthusiasm, if he can funnel his passion, if he doesn't forget his roots, if a frog had wings... obama, listless. after his iowa success, he should have been riding high and giving us a reason to like him and stand behind what he had to say. unfortunately, he really doesn't have anything to say. the novelty of a black person as president is just that, a mere novelty. it shouldn't be the deciding factor. richardson? unfortunately, even in a 4-person debate, he doesn't stand a chance. why? put a stopwatch on. the other three were clearly given more full-frame time, more panning time and more q & a time. would that have anything to do with media influence? no, of course not.

andrewsac, you're a genius. if you think hillary's the answer to this country's problems, then we are in a place of no return. she is a cold and calculating bitch, bought and paid for and crammed down our throats by aipac, regardless of what she says. she has as much charisma as dick cheney, and her smirk is almost as bad as the current smirk-in-chief. so we let her go to the plate for us because she's 0 for 1 on health care proposals?

perhaps you've not had the pleasure of watching someone die of cancer. perhaps you have. if so, you know that that person's medications will not keep him or her alive. in fact, if you've had that pleasure, you will know that four of the seven medications being prescribed to and for that person are to combat the effects of the other three. so much for big pharma and their lack of control over the health concerns of our population, as well as for a cure for cancer. or ms, or parkinsons, or i digress.

kucinich is dead in the water for the exact reason that you say he is not. if you really think the press doesn't control and manipulate, just keep on watching o'reilly and his ilk.

so you think hillary's experience will turn this country around? is that the experience she got as a lawyer down in arkansas? or would that be after she established "legal" residence in new york? or perhaps in her eight year tenure as a former president's wife??? i don't think any of us here think of these candidates as being "innocent and pure", but many of us do have a solid idea of which one would lie to us the most. hillary deserves that dog pile you speak of, on a silver platter.

if you think tax breaks and back room deals aren't having an impact on this country, then maybe you aren't aware of cheney's back-room energy meetings, or enron's collapse, or the current price of gasoline. the issue is NOT what i can afford or not afford to buy. please inform us as to which companies "treat their people well, and don't rape the environment". i'm sure it's a short list and all of us here will be willing to stand in line.

you feel a recession/depression coming on? what part of mars are you standing on? just like hillary last night, stating that we might be slipping, or did she say sliding, into a recession. is she totally fucking clueless? or is she making so much goddamn money that she hasn't bothered to look at her monthly gas bill?

we're not looking for a knight or a repairman, geez. we're looking for a leader.

Eshu,
I recommend Howard Zinn's The People's History of the United States. Wish it were on the reading list of every Hgh School. A couple of groups have taken his approach to history and created (and performed People's Histories of their community, town, etc. But there are numberess activist organisations that provide history and/or current analyis. It'sl so accessible now: e.g websites: Friends National Committee for Legistlation, FCNL, has been monitoring and lobbying Congress since 1943; The American Friends Service Committee, AFSC, domestic and international activism since 1917; "In Defense of American Liberties", A History of the ACLU. And so many newer res orcessince the internet. Anyway you're in one of the premier websites, younger progressive can scroll down right, left and center!

911

diebold

watch out..

Eshu,
I recommend Howard Zinn's The People's History of the United States. Wish it were on the reading list of every Hgh School. A couple of groups have taken his approach to history and created (and performed staged readings) of People's Histories of their community, town, etc. But there are numberess activist organisations
that provide history and/or current analyis. It's all so accessible now: e.g websites: Friends National Committee for Legistlation, has been monitoring and lobbying Congress since 1943; The American Friends Service Committee domestic and international activism since 1917; "In Defense of American Liberties", A History of the ACLU. And so many others since the internet.

I too am a Kucinich supporter and today I received this as his explanation of why he switched to Obama.
For the record:

1. New Hampshire is the first state where we are aggressively campaigning. Due to the Party lockout in Iowa, we chose to focus on New Hampshire.
2. I am the only person running for President who voted against the war, against funding the war 100% of the time, against the Patriot Act, and who stands for a universal single-payer not-for-profit healthcare system. Nevertheless I was excluded from Saturday night's ABC Presidential debate, or four tone monologue as it was.
3. In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.

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

While I indicated Senator Obama as a preferred second choice in Iowa, Progressives have fundamental disagreements with him and all of the other Presidential candidates on most of their major positions on the issues.

We must have the courage of our convictions to fully support and vote for what it is we really want. For once, we must realize our power, stop playing tactical games, and vote as a bloc - which, as you know, is what the religious right does and why they often win.

We Progressives are in the majority in this election. We will win only when we refuse to compromise and vote with integrity.

Dennis Kucinich

Fundamentally, I think we as a NATION are OVERDUE for a woman and/or black (person-of-color, anyway) President.

However, I would NOT like to think that I'd voted FOR someone based on things as SHALLOW as GENDER or RACE, but that rather it was based on the PRINCIPLES that I believed the person stood for, REGARDLESS of his/her race.

That said, and I cannot explain why, Clinton, whom I was first pleased to see running, has been making me more and more uneasy. Uncertain.

Obama, I am OK with, completely.

But then, I am OK with Edwards completely, TOO.

PLUS from what I've gathered ONLY EDWARDS has a TRUE UNIVERSAL healthcare plan, and as an ex-RN with 24 years of experience, a person with hypertension, diabetes, HIV, CHF, COPD, ILD, LIP, LVH and RVH, bicuspid and tricuspid VP, an MI, and who wears oxygen 24-hours-a-day, now, I have always believed ALL should have decent access to healthcare, but NOW I believe it EVEN MORE.

That one thing pushed me toward Edwards, but someone said that getting HIS plan through would NOT happen because congress will NOT do it, and dthe Obaman's plan has a chance.

Any thoughts on that?

Somewhere far above someone said "President Huckabee has a ring to it"---- I think it would be "President Hucksterbee" This boy has run scams all his adult life starting with Preacher---- don't be surprised if he opens up the "Ten Commandments in the Courthouse" ploy----- Same old game---

Assuming this is true, don't you find it interesting what the megamedia (and Common Dreams) decide is news fit for us serfs? What's the big almighty deal if some of Obama's supporters booed Hillary at opportune moments? Maybe they're boorish idiots or maybe they were asked to do it by Obama's campaign or maybe they were Republican plants. To me, it's a nonissue no matter how CNN and Time try to slice it. Now if you'll excuse me, I have other things to do--like keeping my underwear out of my crack till something important comes along.

MY 1st Choice: Kucinich
MY 2nd Choice: Gore
MY 3rd Choice: Edwards

When Senator Edwards came to town last year, one of the local Unions suggested a $25 donation. When Senator Obama came to town, it too, was a $25 donation.

Gov Richardson was a bit pricy, his group wanted more, but would take a $50 donation.

When Hillary came to town, it was $1000 a head, no exceptions.

I met Edwards, Obama and Richardson. Although my favorite is Edwards--his wife is awesome--yet, I definitely could support Obama or Richardson. (Note: In person, Richardson seems the most human. Maybe because he is the last in the polls?)

But Hillary shut me out.

If this is what she does as a friggin' candidate, what will she do as President?

I should also note that none of the Republicans allow you to see them for less than $500-$1000.
Hell-o? Who wants my vote? I understand fundraising, but $2000 per couple is not reality for most Americans.

As for sheer energy, no body rocks the house like Obama. Even in this red, red state, the kids there went wild. Most of them had never been to a political event before. It was a phenomonon.

If the youth vote, Obama can and will win.

Kucinich has said to his supporters to vote for Obama. The young support Obama. Now, will that same "young" get off of their backsides and go out and vote? If they want Obama they have to vote, not sit back and hope or complain. They wanted the vote at 18 and their record so far has been dismal. Sorry, if you don't want to serve on a jury and you think voting puts you there. Vote, your country depends on it. If you want Obama get off of your rear and vote. I've had it with this country and the apathy.

Ok, maybe not yet ...

RE: - A vote for Hillary is a vote for Bush.

Sounds like a campaign slogan to me. Reminds me of a line of the Harland Colt song about Stephen Harper and George Bush: "There ain't nothing gay about a Bush lovin' man."

A vote for Hillary is a vote for someone who will choose getting on the bandwagon over being right each and every time. If someone released a poll that those in NH prefer Maple walnut icecream - Hillary will come out as the greatest Maple walnut icecream lover of all time.

Ok, this time I am ready to be serious

RE: - John Edwards is the only one who has said he would pull our troops out of Iraq and end the occupation.

John Edwards never said that he would pull out all troops - only that he would pull out combat troops - there is a difference!

RE: - Keep your eyes and ears on C-SPAN, Road to the Whitehouse, get it unedited as it goes down.

As a Canadian, it is up to you guys to tell me when these things are going down so that I can watch them. I am more apt to have the TV on Newsworld or CPAC than CNN, ABC, CSPAN etc.

RE: - Poor Dennis Kucinich. He's literally forgotten already by the so-called progressive community.

Hopefully, his ideas are not. As long as Kucinich's ideas are discussed, the Dems are haunted by his ghost. Speaking of Kucinich, Clinton and that guy with the round face who figured that light debate was less civil than hostage negotiations both mentioned the Oil Law the US is trying to push on Iraq as a good thing. Edwards refrained commenting on it.

RE: - Edwards was talking to the audience; it wasn't an attack; but Obama reacted like it was; Obama was backpedaling, losing his legs.

Obama I think was a little bit afraid that Edwards was going to go after him too (and was very careful to talk of listening to the people rather than of going after the Corporations directly). Hillary took the bait and said that

I figure that Edwards won. My mother said that Obama won but that Edwards seemed to be protecting Obama from attack during the debate. We both think that Hillary did not do that well.

RE: - Why is no one talking about the DLC?

What is DLC?

RE: - So I recommend that they SUPPORT RON PAUL. Yea yea I hear the screams already. But listen carefully: 1) he scares the establishment 2) he has some progressive and populist policies (end empire, end drug war, restore civil liberties, end corporate welfare/subsidies)

I don't care if Ron Paul plans to end corporate subsidies, he still plans to leave Global warming up to Exxon. And he is not just against social programs for corporations - he is against them for people too. Those Charter schools they are setting up in New Orleans - he is not against them!

RE: - Hillary's healthcare plan is the best, plain and simple. It's been vetted, and she has the scars from the last fight to prove it.

The private insurance companies are not complaining any way.

Clinton did make Edwards point for him. Edwards did get this legislation through congress only to have it vetoed by Bush. Bush and Cheney are both known for their corporate connections.

RE: - I noticed, Mr. Paul Bramscher, that your comments on Obama's sucking up to AIPAC were generally ignored here, or dismissed as an "unfortunate" opportunist move.

Which probably means that a quick two sentence definition of AIPAC is in order. Some will roll their eyes as to why you are explaining something everyone already knows. Others will be glad to finally know what you are talking about. Both will be able to comment if they so wish.

(clapping for williameon)

"Change must come from the bottom." (Doom n Gloom)
From the middle (class).

"How eager the "left" is to deny the blatantly obvious: that capitalism is simply incapable of generating a leadership that will lead society away from the abyss, and that if there's any hope at all, it lies in the grassroots effort to organize democratic cels. Everything else is horseshit."

Good observation eshu. Change must come from the bottom. Until the minds and hearts of the majority of ordinary people develop a new vision, and become active in the application of that vision, change will not happen. Change will not come from the top. No one person at the top has the capacity to comprehend or express the peoples vision. Decentralization is the key to real change. People must determine that vision and bring it to reality. Forget the idea of centralized change from on high.

It's nice to see I'm not the only one that's highly annoyed at how the corporate media is marginalizing John Edwards. Although it's completely hypothetical, I am willing to be if Edwards got half the hype Barockstar gets he'd be leading in the polls.

BTW, anyone foolish enough to think Obama stands for change need only look at who is advising him. As much as a dislike Hillary and her equivocal policies stances she did rightly point out that a BIGPHARMA lobbyists runs Obama's campaign in New Hampshire.

GARBOTOO - I thought that line was from Bugs Bunny

RE: - I just don't think Dennis has the animal magnetism or is the father figure that Americans want in a president.

You make it sound as if all Americans are orphans. Naomi Klein is right - Giuliani is not her daddy. Alice Cooper is right:

You want to rule us with an iron hand
You change the lyrics and become Big Brother
This ain't Russia, you ain't my Dad or Mother

Giuliani and Romney freaked me out during that debate making Huckabee seem friendly.

Ron Paul reminded me of Magneto (X-men) because he seemed to want the same things Kucinich wants but when you start talking domestic policy he is after the poorest of the poor rather than corporate welfare bums. He seems to think that if you let Exxon be that they would solve all the world's problems. I can also see him wearing that helmet and making chess pieces move (so I hope they do the spoof). Hey, if Air Farce can portray Harper as a cyborg who shoots lasers out of his eyes, Dion as a deranged owl and Layton as a bunny rabbit, they can do that for me.

BTW - when did the market place become part of the America Constitution.

Harper - Conservative - Prime Minister
Stephan Dion - Liberal
Jack Layton - NDP

RE: - 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.

At the beginning, one does go for generalities, but it is the job of the media to pin down the candidates as much as possible.

Edwards has only promised to remove COMBAT troops from Iraq and Aljazeera says that Kucinich: "has continued to call for not only US troop withdrawal but a removal of all US CONTRACTORS from the country."

Thus, there are three groups of US military in Iraq:
Combat troops
Peace-keepers
US contractors

And Edwards only promised to pull one of those three groups out of Iraq and never ruled out increasing the number of either of the other two at any time prior to doing so. Clinton asked Edwards a direct question on this which Edwards did not really answer.

RE: - 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.

I heard that too and figured that the person was full of BS. I figured that the person who said it was just talking for one of the candidates.

RE: - Most politicians will deliberately remain as vague as they can get away with.

And when they try to remain so during Question Period, they seem to continue to get questions on the same topic over and over again. If the media and the other candidates don't get Obama, Edwards Clinton and that guy with the round face I trust as much as Karlheinz Schreiber don't get the eventual Democratic Presidential candidate to clarify his or her positions, I am sure that the Republican hopeful will be more than obliging in that regard.

RE: - Traditional political campaigning is just useless masterbation designed to control the masses.

Are you saying that it is all useless or just distinguishing between the useless and useful type. ;)

And, to continue the metaphor - is it possible for a candidate to climax too soon? If so, Clinton may have done so already and Obama may be in the danger of doing so.

RE: - Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi wouldn't now just be "campaigning"; they'd be in jail.

Considering that Marc Emery (the Prince of Pot) has compared himself to both of these people and is now facing extradition to the US ...

If Hoover could have had King jailed, there would have been no need to have him assassinated!

Now back to being serious.

Hillary may want to lead but I don't want to follow - I want to be represented. We are not a flock of sheep. The Congress betrayed us and yesterday's leftovers will do the same.

eshu,

Hope and trust and usually ahead of wisdom in most people's repertoires, especially young people. Hope is something we learn at a very young age, whereas wisdom is difficult to accumulate without a variety life's experiences, education, mentoring, etc.

We've had 150 years of Democrats, and they've been reduced to a party which gives Bush basically anything he wants, refuses to impeach despite a huge laundry list. This is possible, I think, because it's possible to re-fool people, each generaion anew -- using the same old tricks.

Older progressives (50+) need to pass on their knowledge, one way or the other, to young people in ways such that the younger generation needn't re-learn, be re-fooled, time and again. We need a mechanism to transmit progressive wisdom down the age pipeline, in as quick a manner as possible.

Obama is undoubtedly a crypto-neocon. And I suspect that the MSM is the sieve. Anyone who fails to court AIPAC, etc. may face a subtle media blackout. With any luck, perhaps in the next 10-20 years ahead, increasing numbers of people will be getting their news from blogs, places like CD, international sources, internet sources, etc. in which dynamic feedback and discussion is possible and people won't need to be continually re-fooled against their own class interests.

Since Edwards is being ignored by
The Cr-ass Media.
He is the best choice.
Greed is the disease that is
Destroying our country.
It has to be addressed!
Greed is evil.
A negative human trait!
It works for a few very wealthy people but,
Is a failure for the rest of us.
Who ever The Cor'pirates' like I
am against!
The time for baby steps is over.
The Republic has to learn how to walk.
The Time for Positive Creative Change is upon us.
This system is so dated and corrupt that it is imploding
From the weight of its own GREED.
The two party system is a sham.
It's exclusive!
It excludes all opposition.
Our tent must be large enough to hold everybody!
It will take 24 years to reverse the effects of King George II.
Three times the amount of his own reign.
Some of the effects like the death, destruction and pollution can never be reversed.
His insanity must be stopped now!
We live in a time warp.
Bushzarro America!
Where everything is done backwards.
Where The King steals from the poor and gives to the rich.
Where the Resident loots his own Treasury!
He is the Captain of the U.S.Titanic
Headed straight for an iceberg!
Get in your life boats now,
Before it's too late.
Divest yourselves from his Evil Empire as soon as possible.
It's going down.
Stand back and clap!

The only way to get the republic back is to return the power to mint money to the government.

Unless this is done you can vote your little hearts out,but there will be no change in the way the sheeple are governed by the elite.

justpassingthrough:

"Et tu, Brute?"

It's been said that "the eyes are the doorway to the soul." Hillary may be tired, but I look into her eyes in this photo and see SOULESSNESS. It's almost like the story of Daniel Webster and that age-old fable about making a pact with the devil. If "the devil" in modern times are the corporations that act without soul or conscience as they devour the planet's people and resources, then perhaps she HAS made the payment. Something vital has been extracted from this woman. For all the education, she missed the KEY lesson to life! But power does have that way of corrupting absolutely. A friend of mine found a gold relic from a sunken treasure ship years ago and he said he STILL has "gold fever." I suppose there's a political equivalent to it, that all these corrupt politicians fall to.

I always figured that people who leave comments (and read them) in endless threads like this are high school teachers.

I noticed, Mr. Paul Bramscher, that your comments on Obama's sucking up to AIPAC were generally ignored here, or dismissed as an "unfortunate" opportunist move. Likewise the observations from another poster that Obama is already linked up to the notorious cold warrior Zbigniew Brzinski, who, alongside Jimmy Carter, helped lead the foreign policy of this country into support for Islamic fundamentalism as an anti-communist strategy. You know, the very policy that brought us Osama bin Laden to begin with.

And how is this dealt with here? Well, the tone seems to be that the mystical fetish called the "youth vote" will keep any future President Obama on the straight and narrow. A laughable concept at best. I've taught high school in a number of settings in the last ten years, and I've not seen anything emerging among young people on any sort of mass base that indicates any tendency toward what many who post here like to call "progressive politics". The underground hip hop movement, for example, held out much promise, until many of its leaders started dashing off after charlatans like Al Sharpton and P. Diddy.

How eager the "left" is to deny the blatantly obvious: that capitalism is simply incapable of generating a leadership that will lead society away from the abyss, and that if there's any hope at all, it lies in the grassroots effort to organize democratic cels. Everything else is horseshit.

Juliana - RE:"The public is a whole lot wiser than most politicians think....Be proud, Americans, you are still out there." Who the heck do you think got us into this mess? Who voted twice for Bush the lesser? Or if you think those elections were stolen, who let them stand? Who has not marched on Washington? How many get all their 'facts' from TV? How many actually vote?

Working together 'the public' could even now exert alot of power. But it's hard work to even go to the voting booth, let alone become educated; perhaps too hard to forgoe some of our current pleasures; so we just keep returning to the forum to watch what happens. And considering the quality of information the public is fed, probably just as well if the turnout is low.

andrewsac January 6th, 2008 3:38 am

"The 90's weren't all bad. I remember them as decent for me and my family, and we were not well-off."

Glad to hear that you and your family did all right in the nineties. But for others the nineties were the beginning of "free trade" implemented by Clinton and a Democratically led Congress which decimated large portions of the middle class in this country. Do I want a return to a party that turned on those who elected them? No thanks.

Lobo Gris

andrewsac January 6th, 2008 3:38 am

"While we are all blaring on and on about how awful Hillary is, lets not forget that NONE of the front runners - OBAMA, EDWARDS, OR CLINTON - followed Chris Dodd to Washington to help him Fillibuster just before Iowa"

Edwards is not a Senator and therefore cannot filibuster in the Senate.

Lobo Gris

While we are all blaring on and on about how awful Hillary is, lets not forget that NONE of the front runners - OBAMA, EDWARDS, OR CLINTON - followed Chris Dodd to Washington to help him Fillibuster just before Iowa. What cowards. I am a Hillary supporter, but I really need an explaination on that one. For the "change" candidates, Edwards and Obama sure beat a path the other way when presented with an opportunity to stand up to "the system". They let him hold the bag alone. So much for change. Or sticking their neck out even ONCE for the change they are going on and on about. But Obama has a history of that, for sure. Hope is not a plan, and hoping that he has some substance behind Hope, Hope, Hope, is like hoping that Rudy has more behind 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 than he has.
Hillary's healthcare plan is the best, plain and simple. It's been vetted, and she has the scars from the last fight to prove it. You don't turn a ship this big around on a dime, it's that simple. All this talk about radical change ignores the reality on the ground. We can't get universal healthcare without talking to everyone and sitting them down at the table, unless you intend to nationalize the insurance industry in one swoop. And who will be doing that, exactly? Kusinich? He wasn't even invited to participate in tonight's deate. He's dead, and it's not because the "press" hates him. He's been on the tube, even on the Daily Show, and folks just aren't excited about him. Sorry, but I this is a computer I am typing on, not a wand. I can't manufacture excitement just for all of you. And I need someone who can really change Washington, who knows everyone, and has some experience. I don't love Hillary, but you know what? I don't have to. I have to have a real sense that she can get the job done, and I get that from her. All this talk about inside the Beltway is just bullsh*t.They are ALL insiders, folks. This folksy demeaner is just an act, like Bush senior eating pork rinds every four years. Obama and his wife are both lawyers - so are Edwards and his wife. They are also all rich. So lets get over the idea that all of these people are innocent and pure, and that they will never lie to us, or disappoint us.
As exhibit A, I offer Edwards tonight. He certainly dogpiled on Hillary now that she isn't the front runner. Kind of funny - wasn't this the guy who was critical of Hillary in Iowa when she WAS the front-runner? He is a one-trick pony, attacking to show that he isn't afraid of the big, bad, girl. In Iowa, his campaign was negative non-stop, I was there. Doing it with a smile doesn't make you a nice guy - it makes you a jerk. ALL he can do is find fault, but it takes more than parroting the same phrase over and over to lead. If he thinks that he can bitch slap every large company in the US and they will just fall in line, his ego is bigger than I thought.
I got news for ya guys - WE are responsible for every large corp out there. Our buying power makes all of them possible. If you need to find the person responsible for the stranglehold these corps have on us, get off Hillary's back - and go look into your bathroom mirror. The well-fed face staring back at you is the one who can't do without all of the crap that these guys are selling. We build and destroy companies every day - and it has noting to do with tax breaks or back-room deals. Stop buying sh*t you can't afford. And get informed about companies that you CAN get behind, ones that treat their people well, and don't rape the environment. Or don't buy it at all.
There are too many immediate problems for this country to have a learn-on-the-job president. As exhibit B, I offer the first Clinton White House, ironically enough. That was on the job training that cost several months, due to inexperience. We've been down this road before, people. The 90's weren't all bad. I remember them as decent for me and my family, and we were not well-off.
We also probably do not have the money to implement the fixes in the near-term that all of us progressive want. We owe more money than we have ever owed - you can't hope you way out of that. And we need a plan out of Iraq. That will take at least a year. The logistical reality on the ground will not allow that to be any faster. And we need to decide to leave millions behind in new construction that will almost certainly be looted the minute we leave. Hey, if you can live with it, so can I, but we still have to pay the bill, plus interest, to the Chinese. The money has been spent in our name, and BushCo is going to ride off into the sunset giving us the finger all the way. So enough of this talk about change. There is going to be NO change for a while - just damage control. I feel a recession/depression coming on, and Clinton's experience getting the debt under control will count for something. Not her experience, you say? Well, at least she won't be putting the Arabian Horse Show guy in charge because he was roomies with a Bush buddy in college. She'll find the best damn person, period, to fix the problem. Sometimes you need a Knight, and sometimes you need a Repairman. Ladies and Gentlemen, we need a Repairman this time. We've been punked, and it will take an experienced person to get us back on track. You don't have to love her either, but she is the best candidate to do just that. Real change takes time, real reform, lasting reform, takes time. Unless we just go into every boardroom and just close them all down, we are going to have to talk to these corps. Why? Well, some of our fellow progressive work for them, for one thing. There are also others who are not the devil who work for them too. Let's use our heads for something other than keeping our skulls from caving in. As the wall in New Orleans says, "hope is not a plan".

You mean bellwether, from the male sheep, often castrated, that lead the herd with a bell collar.

Policies matter "[ron paul] is hands down the best protest vote IF you dont want to vote for a democrat."

you're right there would be screaming. I would rather you guys re-elect bush and blow the whole world to smithereens, than elect some new kind of awful. What on earth would people who are progressive see in him. He is like diehard for the capitalist biggots. Yeah, he shuts down all of government handouts, but he also shuts down almost all government services! What does his version of government provide but a safer haven for rampant laissez faire capitalism and nothing else? He, for you less cautious "progressives" is the wolf in sheep's clothing, if you are so naive to not see through it. You think he is some sort of benevolent anarchist who is going to make truly free markets, and stop the u.s dominance and interventionist policies. Bullshit. That is how our government protects its capital (or really the capital of the people in power, not so much the whole government.)

Ron Paul, no way, don't vote for Kodos.

Dont all get your panties all in a twist...only one vote will count on election day and that is DIEBOLD'S

wake up and smell the corruption

Why is no one talking about the DLC? The Clinton's are both hard core DLC. In many ways they (and the DLC) are political failures (or devious successes!) yet they still have cult status, especially among those OVER 40. Edwards is DLC. His "progressive" "populist" message seems hard to swallow given his votes, his DLC membership, and his 10,000 sq foot house. (If being poor is so noble he could just give away some of his 10mil+ networth.) Oh, BTW you know who else is DLC? The guy who just endorsed McCain--Liebermann; the man who still holds the Democrats balls in the Senate.

I believe Obama and Richardson are NOT DLC. I am troubled no one seems to mention this when discussing matters. Obama is a largely unknown quantity. Richardson is a mixed bag but good on some things. I think a Obama/Richardson ticket is not the worst outcome. Many here seem upset (as am I) that the "democratic wing of the democratic party" is not being represented. Clearly, Kucinich is a "progressive" democrat and so is Gravel in a significantly different way--but baring a radical shift in consciousness they have had their campaigns effectively ended by the MSM and the democratic party. This is sad but alas true; I see it on the ground people.

There are some here that are disgusted with the Democratic party choices of the "frontrunners." (Some say of those say go Green Party. Well, I would support a viable Green Party but it isnt--and dont blame me.)
So I recommend that they SUPPORT RON PAUL. Yea yea I hear the screams already. But listen carefully: 1) he scares the establishment 2) he has some progressive and populist policies (end empire, end drug war, restore civil liberties, end corporate welfare/subsidies) that the "main" democratic candidates dont even have 3) he would start to take the republican party back to its roots (which look pretty good these days!) 4) pulling the republicans back to the center/in a different direction on at least some issues will have a big effect on what democrats (and republicans) can discuss and make headway on
5) the guy raised 20 million (the most of any republican) in the fourth quarter from over 50,000 people donating less than 100 bucks on average 6) Bill Moyers had him on his show!! 7) if NH independents vote for him (44% of reg voters in NH are ind.) he could beat the other republicans. He is hands down the best protest vote IF you dont want to vote for a democrat.

Like most I have a lot of reservations about Obama but I believe he is the right candidate. Kucinich's suggestion of Obama to his Iowa supporters in the second round is hardly a general recommendation but it does appear that Kucinich likes Obama more than the others. His support of Israel and lousy healthcare plan is unfortunate, but if Obama rides the progressive youth vote into victory he would be beholden to them like Bush owes the religious right, maybe. Obama is young and more capable of personal change than Hillary when his chief constituents demand it, I hope.

Obama/Edwards!

Perhaps someone has already said this, but nobody sounded as close to the republicans as Hillary did.

And for all those supporters for the candidates who polled less than 5%, please dont let the republicans win.

Perhaps you can make a difference by voting in a democrate, and not wasting a vote on a Naderlike character.

Unless the nominee picks Dennis as his running buddy, He does not seem to have a chance.

Perhaps he should make more noise in the next four years.
That might help his visibility.

nayoibi January 5th, 2008 4:23 pm

"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."

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's most likely a duck, not the swan you are hoping for.

Lobo Gris

John Edwards was sincere.
It was obvious, and Barack Obama wasn't. Edwards was talking to the audience; it wasn't an attack; but Obama reacted like it was; Obama was backpedaling, losing his legs.
Hillary oblivious; Richardson daydreaming.

(If 50% NH are really undecided, we'll see a change in the %s tomorrow.)

Hillary Clinton just won't be flexible. She really, really thinks she knows what's best for the U.S., just like you-know-who. THAT is her problem, and she wants to shove her methods and approaches to big problems down the throats of the American voter. She has just had too many tet-a-tets with wealthy contributors. What must be doubly galling is that the American people have had enough of her husband as well. Too late we learned that his "middle of the road" policies was just another way to lead us into the debacle we are in. Oh, I certainly hope that Obama gets this message. We are Democrats and we believe that the Federal Government must represent the people and must work with the state governments who must represent the people, state by state. That is the kind of collaboration we want, not the kind that surrenders to the special Corporate interests in the marketplace and then calls it "bipartisanship", etc. Like big fat ticks, the corporate investors (who profit from the building of prisons, the phony no child left behind testing materials, the war, natural disasters, etc.) have had their day. Obama, or Edwards, either one, must take heed of the voting temperament. We expect some balance in the collection and distribution of our tax dollars. But most importantly, bring the troops home now.

You can either vote for a republican, or you can vote for Hillary. Either way you're getting a republican.

Why are progressives on this website following the republican playbook?

There are two progressive candidates, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel (my preference) and I want to see more article here on CD about them and their policies.

Clinton and Obama are clearly not progressive, Edwards probably isn't a true practitioner of progressive politics (though he does talk the talk sometimes).

Vote your conscience. Register for the Green Party.

the ninth wave,a novel by eugene burdick..(chapter;).'murder rides the ninth wave'. it is old surfer - lingo.it is said that the ninth wave of a set of waves , is ominous and to ride it , the rider knows the risk ,as the ninth wave is said to be a 'killer' wave. i know a bit classic surf lingo and lore..,i remember a poster here awhile back , because her name was a classic old surf definition for falling off your board into turbulent water . what about a poster referring to a ninth wave ? i missed that exchange . i don't like any candidate well enough to vote for them . KEM , you are champion of john edwards , and he sounds good , my family had an encounter with him ,when he was a practicing lawyer , years ago in north carolina , i won't get into any discussion about it ,but suffice it to say , that i hope edwards is truthful and not a crook , kem ,because he has the jimdandiest platform. but i still can't find just the right person to vote for . i thought that was a nasty trick george w. pulled on hillary ,last week. giving the insurance and pharmaceutical companies the very things they had wanted from hillary. knew they would have an ace up the sleeve. more profits , less repercussions and the poor and the elderly will pay for the whole thing....

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

I am certain it is personal. It has to be when one is runnig for office against others. Very personal.

A sporting contest is personal, poker for real money is personal. Politics is very personal.

On the Bill Moyer's TV news program last night, Kucinich said he did not endorse Obama. He said, ~he just told his supporters to vote for Obama if he didn't make the 15% cut in the first round~. He has to fight it out with Edwards in New hampshire and perhaps thought it would be very good if Edwards didn't win Iowa. He made a big mistake in my opinion by doing that. It looks as if he made a deal with Obama, and indeed, that is what one of his staff said, Kucinich made a deal with Obama.

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

Neither do I Big Bad Bob. I do like your posts however.

A "must read":

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

The Obama Illusion

The only hope the Republicans have is a Clinton or Obahma ticket, Edwards has all the qualities to drive the bush gang into the ground where they belong so the MEDIA ignore Edwards and promote the other two. Edwards will win because the American people have awoken from their long slumber at last.

Hi sophia. I don't have any great revelations or anything like that, but I trust Kucinich, too. And I highly doubt he'd endorse someone who he felt was bad for the American people.

She looks so very mad and appears to be snarling. Reminds me of Howard Dean when he lost.

Poor Dennis Kucinich. He's literally forgotten already by the so-called progressive community. Meanwhile the 'ruling-class' finds amusement in watching Democrats play tug-of-war with Obama, Edwards, and Clinton. It looks like they'll win again. Media manipulation is quite effective in achieving results.

Some posters are referring to the "Ninth Wave".

Is this a book?

Thank you.

KEM, The Ninth Wave, good suggestion. Eugene Burdick (The Ugly American, Fail-Safe, etc) was way ahead of his times. 52 years later the Ninth Wave is still relevant, prophetic really. Thanks for the reminder.

Did none of you actually watch the NH Democratic Dinner? I did, a very large portion of that assembly went wild chanting for Hillary for a long time with "Ready" playing in the background and hundreds of READY posters waving around all over - more than drowned out any booing, and it looked like they were mobbing her party as it moved through the room. Obama's also enthusiatic reception was shorter as it happens and less over the top.
Hillary is very impressiv, I saw and heard her close up in my town, a few years ago and was in complete admiration for her intelligence, fluency, analytical abilit and - suprise - authenticity. BUT, her 'war' votes and defense posture has made her unaccebtable for this voter, alas.
This article is biased baloney - Jay Newton-Small, Small by name an small by nature it seems. And Time/CNN? Pulease!
Keep your eyes and ears on C-SPAN, Road to the Whitehouse, get it unedited as it goes down.

What are you talking about PEACE CANDIDATE? John Edwards is the only one who has said he would pull our troops out of Iraq and end the occupation.

NAYOIBI, you don't have a clue either. John Edwards stands alone and he's the only one who will put us back on the right track.

BIG BAD BILL, you said the same thing aobut 20 others wrote here. We know the score too.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Bush.
Time for the American people to wake-up.
Obama is the one to do it.
Good for America ,good for the world.

ANDYMAN, I knew you had it correct. It was the other I was referring to.

Traditional political campaigning is just useless masterbation designed to control the masses. It absorbs their energy with no guarantee that anything will change once the new leader gets into office.

There's no reason why candidates have to wait until they're in office to act. There's no reason why the candidates can't be now leading marches, sit ins, civil disobedience, encouraging people to STOP BUYING, etc.

That they don't act now leads one to question their true motives. It may all be just reality tv.

Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi wouldn't now just be "campaigning"; they'd be in jail.

because the all you can eat buffet of candidates is in reality ,cold beans from a tin can . no real variety on the menu. you should know by now that if it is a tuxedo and ball gown event , they are going to tell you to show up in your clown suit and vice versa . welcome to mirror world , which is why i know the only thing that could turn this freak show around , is if nobody showed up to vote for any of them at all. since that isn't going to happen this year , you can vote for fraud , frauder or fraudiest....alias evil , eviler or evilest , and quit your whining .

Obama, Edwards, Clinton
Fraud, Fraud, Fraud

If most of America wants to end the war, why are they settling for 'top tier' candidates that all agreed we'd still have troops in Iraq in 2013 ? It's just like 'Add 40,000 troops Kerry' in 2004- America has a 'choice' between a pro-war D and and a pro-war R.

It makes no sense, other than calling it Manufactured Consent.

RE: - The "sheeple" have drunk the Obama KoolAid and it's a soothing, tasty drink, less filling than the rest. He's not the JFK of our time, he's the Mr Rogers.

At least you didn't compare him to Mr Dress-up who died days after 9-11 BTW. Mr. Dress-up got his start with Fred Rogers btw.

RE: - Almost every bad thing said about Senator Clinton can be traced back to Limbaugh and his copiers.

What about what Hillary "I see imaginary people" Clinton said on December 31, 2002 - or what I prefer to call Hamdani-gate (after Michael John Hamdani). It was at that moment I found out what kind of person Hillary is and the Repugs had nothing to do with it!

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20030108/coderre_fbi_hoax_030108/20030108/

But as far as Obama supporters booing Clintion - I think I saw something similar in the documentary "Please Vote For Me" about a grade 3 class in China where the kids were trying to decide between three potential candidates for Class Monitor. That was one of the tricks one of the 8 year old candidate's supporters used when another 8 year old candidate got up to speak - booing.

http://www.whydemocracy.net/film/3

I wonder how many of the other tactics used by candidates in this documentary we are going to see.

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

First they ignore you ...

How does the rest of it go?

RE: - With Hillary in there, John Edwards has to split the vote of those who don't favor Obama with her.

I thought it was the other way around - that Obama and Edwarts were not-Hillary I and not-Hillary II.

Canada won BTW! In over time.
AdeleTheCzech, the one thing that Mulroney's dirty business taught me is that it is illegal to donate to the political campaign of another country. Buying a button as a novelty item is allowed, though.

RE: - Obama will be the Kennedy of the 21st century.

If he dates a movie star and then gets assassinated then the comparisons will never stop.

Debate starting soon and I did not get through the comments.

RE: - And yes, I have written far worse about George W. Bush.

I would certainly hope so!

RE: - He backed the Iraq war, calling it a "theological war" against people "whose religious fanaticism will not be satisfied until every last one of us is dead, until our culture, our society, is completely obliterated from the face of the earth."

Then why haven't they gone after Canada, as Ron Paul says. Think of it, the founder of Iran's gay rights group now lives in Canada and the second leader of the group is in the process of trying to move here. Whose culture is more of a threat to the right winged Islamists - Canada's or the United State's?

Ron Paul was right about that issue - Huckabee and his backup singers Julie (Giulini) and Ramona (Romney) are just blowing smoke out of their asterixes.

dear hillary , i remember how hard you fought , when you were the first lady, for us to have national healthcare. i think that was the real you . your efforts were crucified . i don't know for a certainty , judging by the angry mob that hisses , boos and calls for your political death , you were the one that was (covertly) on the side of the people . i will be thinking of you , best wishes, from one of the people

The Repukes are pretty smart. They know:

What is the figure? 60% of the voters are women? They are afraid of Hillary winning like she did in new york as senator (but they'd much rather have her than Edwards.)

The Repukes control the media corps and they'd rather have a candidate who cannot win the general election get the dem nomination.

And that man is Obomber.

If the dems play to win, they'll run hillary without Obomb-em as running mate. But nobody's ever accused the dems of being smart.....

Vote green party. You know what's going to happen if we keep voting for dynasty. Misery.

Just one more note here folks. This thing is just beginning. How about we let it run a while before we start trying to declare a winner. MSM be dammed! I am hopefull the American people will use their brains a little this time around.

Here is an article from the Baltimore Sun RE: Edwards
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/edwards_keeps_humming_while_ot.html

Nice to see him getting some direct attention. The article points out that Edwards message is on target, where as Obummer and others are changing theirs.

If you think Edwards get little airtime, how 'bout Kucinich, talk about marginalized. I hope he makes a strong showing on Tuesday!

JAY N-S

1. It's bellwether. A bellwether is the lead sheep of a herd, wears a bell on his collar, so the others and the shepherd know where he is. The other meaning, therefore, is of an indicator of trends. (widder - Old Saxon for male sheep)

My pet peeve - it's bad enough that the hoi polloi no longer know how to speak or write English, but those who make their living with the language must know better.

2. "by comparison" - a comparison is of similar things. "by contrast" would fit properly.

[...and yes, I know my punctuation etc. are incorrect - these are rough notes.]

Otherwise, thanks for the article - good to know.