I have only one thing to say. Poor Hillary! She is obviously overwhelmed in facing an opponent who has so much more charisma and inspirational force than she. I personally am very tired of the Clintons. I believe we have had enought in the way of dynasties.

What sophistry from the Clinton camp.

There is almost nothing to compare between Clinton and Kennedy or Clinton and Johnson. Granted, there isn't much of a track record to support Obama's candidacy, nor is change for change's sake what we need in these dark times.

But Hillary Clinton has so much to answer for.

1. The Clinton's were reviled by so many from 1992-2000.

2. Hillary Clinton had to become a carpetbagger to win election as Senator from NY.

3. Then she voted for the disastrous Iraq war, and never apologized for it.

4. She followed this vote with a lot of militaristic rhetoric, trying to show that she could out-macho the machos from the Bush-Cheney junta.

5. She took it on the chin in the early years of her husband's reign (the best neoliberal money could buy!) for her attempts at broader healthcare coverage.

6. Then she voted for Ky-Lieberman.

7. The right is bound to open up the old wounds around whitewater and the shenanigans in Arkansas.

8. Despite her "35" years of change claim, I ain't seen it.

9. The USA needs a democracy, not a dynasty.

10. A vote for Hillary is a vote for W's policies!

Move over and go work with the children you bragged about in the NH debates!

celebrity:

Yes, charisma does not a president make, but neither is a president "made" without it, and it is precisely what McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry lacked.

well maybe you posters should have a greater appreciation for the obvious truth that hillary and bill know where all our supplies are kept and they would be the better choice for minding our store when we have so many bush-created enemies , dying to get at us...i am one who happens to think that experience might have just been the wrong 'word' to use.knowledge is crucial. barak obama doesn't know that there is a place for everything , and everything should be in its place.the real enemies of america have been bush/cheney-all along.i don't put it past them to try to disable or move our defenses and our arsenal to dubai and obama would not realize anything was wrong or missing , he will be too busy at the africom. i think we needed a bill and hillary to watch over us and all our monstrous toys in the shop.

'Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have been in a running feud arising from her suggestion at Saturday's debate that he was raising "false hope."'

False hope of change? What more evidence does anyone need that the Clintons represent the status quo? You claim a record of 35 years, Senator Clinton, yet you fundamentally believe that any grand accomplishment is little more than "false hope" ? Why then, as president would you be the president to acccomplish anything worth dreaming about?

Imagine that.

since the republicans have been busy undermining hillary , some of us might not get the chance to vote for her....a breakdown of the candidates; john edwards=lawyer.....hillary clinton=lawyer....barak obama=lawyer......john mcain=physically looking very feeble mitt romney and huckabee= i can lump them into the same category , because they both are running on a platform of blending church and state and that is not democracy , it is opposed to our constitution , it is CRAP . dennis kucinich has been forced to go to the lower 40 and munch grass. that leaves ron paul; he is not a lawyer , he is a healer,a doctor. he is mentally and physically spry and he still holds fast to the constitution and the true principals of democracy.the other republican candidates are afraid to debate him , because he still speaks american and they know , they do not.

Johnson ordered the Cover-up of JFK and Bush and Clinton kept the cover-up alive.

Clintons are just what we need to help keep the Status Quo of Crime.

Sure Johnson acted like he missed JFK....everyone knows JFK was goin to dump him and Hoover.

The Truth explains alot.

We are at a point in our quest for the best candidate where minds are engaged, suffering, celebrating, becoming more enlightened, and finally resigned to a choice. This is crunch time. Hillary got crunched and rejected. America's future is not the imagined future of Hillary Clinton. Bye bye...

You are running for president because you are greedy and get drunk on power. You are a professional political whore.
Hoa binh

vern is right on the mark. more than anything else, clinton's statement exposes the fundamental truth that her america is confined to within the beltway and that events outside it are of no concern to her.

besides which, everything from superdelegates to paper trail-less votes to two stolen presidential elections are evidence that whatever the fix is, it will already be in when the polls open on november 4. obama doesn't know yet that all his sparring with clinton is just rupert murdoch's latest reality show--an ultimately meaningless melodrama.

I wouldn't count Hillary out just yet. She's the party elite's choice. She also has the biggest machine. When Obama has finished softening everybody up -- getting everybody to forget how useless the current majority party in Congress is, I think you will see the MSM start trashing Obama and marginalizing him, just as they have marginalized Kucinich and Paul. Similarly the Repubs will start marginalizing everyone but McCain.

Vern - I have to agree with you. I don't believe that it's Mrs. Clinton's intention to sound like the proverbial party pooper, but her "reality check" tactic does tend to make her seem like a bit of a wet blanket. I just don't think that it's a winning strategy to try to dampen the obvious enthusiasm of voters that support other candidates, from Obama and Edwards to Kucinich and Paul supporters. I vividly remember the 2000 Clinton-Gore campaign. There was a lot of talk about making big changes, new ideas and a positive outlook that people could get excited about. No one who lives in the real world believes that any one candidate can sweep into office and create utopia in America, but I think that the reason these other candidates earn such fierce support from some voters is not only their positions on important issues, but the fact that they each bring new perspectives and fresh ideas to the table. Hilary has somehow allowed herself to be cast as the Democratic fuddy-duddy. It's been a long, LONG time since Democratic voters had a candidate (much less a selection of them) they could really get excited about. If Mrs. Clinton doesn't want to miss the boat, she'd better stop pooh-poohing the hopeful, the dreamers and the silly-hearts, and start giving voters a reason to get excited about HER.

if the die is cast,then i will vote for ron paul .obama has already made his deal with the devils of nuclear power and the lords of uranium.

The Clintons reflect a sad form of de-evolution that has emerged in the recent years of our country. We have lost touch and experience with VISIONARY LEADRSHIP and have tragically been lulled over recent years by MANAGERIAL forms of leadership more representative of corporate board rooms.

Inspiration is the first, democratic step in helping people see change -- and see themselves in playing a role in that change. To deflate such energetic forces is to clearly not understand the vital role vision first plays in the plot of transformational leadership. Granted, vision is not a result -- but it serves as the empowering platform upon which all of us ACT!

FDR -- another visionary and transformative leader once said that what is regarded "as ideal is the only thing real." He clearly understood that all that is realized was first birthed as a vision -- someone's dream -- the seed of what engages shared forms of meaningful action. The rest is history. And, let's blow the dust off those inspiring words of life wisdom -- "Where there is no vision -- the people perish!"

Let's look to those who seek to democtratically empower people and communities -- and who will best faciltiate this process. Enough of false heroes who cast the self as being the answer and having the answer for the rest of us.

"Dancing with them that brung her" is walking the fine line between pragmatism and selling out.

Her wayward-husband got all the lesson's he required long-ago when a 'Rhodes-scholar' regards 'quaint Civil-liberties' in the way of BS neo-'Liberality'...
And Wifey, above, learned-aplenty working for Wally-World as consultant on 'How to screw employee's, communities, and governments for Fun&Profit'...

it is our misfortune that some are forced to dance to the devil's music...or they will get no invitation to the ball. there are leaders whom have had to 'play along' but i'll tell you this , we should be grateful that they were willing to walk in the snake pit , so they could be there to try to do some damage control. many times they were forced to give in to evil and to give the 'devils' what they sought , it was not a choice it was a necessity or the evil would have run us over , a long time ago. try to find it within ourselves , and know that there is a handful of people left to us ,that might not exactly live up to our expectations of what is 'right' or what 'good' should be,because they were forced to sacrifice some of what was 'right' or good so they could hold on to enough to see us thru.

I think I understand what you are saying nayoibi, but I disagree. We've been stuck with a choice between the lessor of two evils for a long time now. And a couple of times we chose the greater. Bush, Reagan come to mind. The first Clinton was not much better, but he certainly had more style. We're were we are because Americans are at the core lazy and shallow, like most people we don't move until it hurts to sit on our asses any longer. I think any Repiglickin (including Ron Paul) would be the last straw, or perhaps nail in the American coffin. I have no clue about Obama, but he is a fresh face, maybe Edwards - he's a fighter and I think his heart is in the right place. Clinton? I don't know. I can only hope she is as liberal as some would have us believe. Until she can say she's sorry about her Iraq votes, I won't trust her. (Perhaps not then) We already have single payer health care for a good percentage of America, why don't we just fix the stupid medicare prescription rules and give it to everyone?
Why don't we just tell the Iraqi's they have until June to fix their problems then we gone?
Why don't we just get rid of the tax cuts for the rich?
Why don't we just decide that 45 miles per gallon is mandatory for all cars in 10 years?
I could go on for hours. If we want to leave anything better than an dyiing swamp/desert for our grandkids we better start making some better decisions.

since1492 ,newsflash; columbus never made it to the shores of what is now 'america' he landed in the west indies , hence the misnomer 'indians' ponce de leon might be the true original terrorist of the peoples we now call 'indians' or native americans.

Might I point out what "charisma" has gotten us for the last eight years. George W. Bush.

I can think of a few words that characterize George W. Bush, but "charisma" isn't one of them.

chakka,
I can too but you have to admit, it wasn't his intelligence that got him voted in. People felt he was charismatic and somehow equated that with being a good president.

celebrity: "Charisma" does NOT a President make!

"We The People" and Constitution protection is what it's about.
http://www.dennis4president.com/home/

Actually it does. And your boy Dennis has none.

nondescript , that would be true , if i thought ron paul was 'evil' i don't think he is evil, so therefore he cannot be the 'lesser' of evils . i don't agree with him on everything , but the fundamentals are in place...the constitution , and the return of democracy is what really matters. ron paul has a desire for world peace and even if he were to fail achieving it , we do not have a prayer , anyway , unless the desire for peace , is first, there.

I wish all these Hillary supporters would examine some of her more odious policies. Eg, Cuba. She wants tough sanctions continued despite the fact they haven't worked for 50 years, they hurt ordinary Cubans but not Castro, and they aren't even supported these days by rank-and-file Cuban exiles in Florida, 55% of whom want the sanctions eased and relations normalized. How about the flag burning amendment she voted for? How about "don't ask, don't tell" which dozens of retired admirals and generals conclude hasn't worked - - and who recommend no policy on gays in the military? She is opportunistic, not in touch with the people, only with the elite Democrats who differ so little from the Republicans.

uh, cyon, HELLO! what about Nixon? if history doesn't deceive us, i think his charismaless highness was "made" twice.

My favorite Lewis Black line ... "KEEP FALSE HOPE ALIVE!!!!!!!"

Abraham Lincoln had no charisma either.

Why do people think Hillary is 'liberal'? I can think of damn little in either the long record of the Clinton's in office or in her term as a Senator to make me think that.

Since the time they lost re-election to the Ark governor's office, the Clinton's have been closely aligned with corporate leaders. It was Tyson chicken in Ark, and anyone who'd donate big bucks to the Clinton's in the White House. So whether you were a worker trying to survive in a chicken processing plant with your hands and fingers intact, or a worker trying to hold onto your job, after the Clinton's passed WTO and NAFTA, the Clinton's were on the side of the corporate bosses, not you.

Hillary's health care plans have always been more about protection of HMO, insurance and big pharma industry profits. She voted in the last year to protect big pharma profits by keeping Americans from shopping overseas. And she supported the banking industry's bankruptcy bill when the bankers saw this crisis coming and decided to make sure we were all even more screwed when their bad loans collapsed.

The Clinton's 1992 campaign was almost entirely one big giant lie. They turned course immediately after winning election. They talked liberal and about making the economy work for ordinary Americans in the campaign, then immediately after the election they got all cosy with Wall Street and put in Wall Street's agenda.

Their foreign policy was as odious as Dubya's. They had their own illegal war in Yugoslavia, with its own war crimes of targeting civilian targets like passenger trains and tv stations. They supported a massive increase to groups that could only be called 'terrorists' in Colombia to protect Occidental Oil's pipeline among other things. And they never hesitated to go blow something up with cruise missiles anytime they needed a distraction from Bill and Monica ... leading to in one instance an unknown number of deaths in Somalia when we mistakenly took out half the nations ability to make its own badly needed medicines. Or was that just another way to boost corporate profits both in the defense industries and for big pharma all at once.

The Clinton's started the trend of federal 'anti-terror' bills that take away our rights, and are responsible for their being a federal death penalty. And to me, Hillary has been a constant supporter of every request Bush puts in for more powers for the President and less rights for the rest of us. She voted for the Patriot Act.

Other than the right-wing smears that she's a 'liberal' or a 'socialist', or maybe the fact that she used to have lunch with the head of the Children's Defense Fund, just what makes anyone think that Hillary is a liberal?

PS ... to me, both the Clinton's and Dubya have killed about a million Iraqis in their terms in office. Maybe Dubya might end up a hundred thousand a head on that score, but in both cases its damn near impossible to really count how many people they've killed. Both seem to be in the range of a million or so in eight years.

The only difference is the choice of weapons. Dubya favored the more direct means of bombs, bullets and an invasion. The Clinton's were maybe more subtle and killed by means of sanctions. Either way, both administrations will have killed about a million Iraqis in their times.

We need to change the name we use to refer to the Democratic party. My suggestion is that we call them the "Evilcrats."

The Democratic apologists freely admit they are evil. They then try to spin it by either claiming that they are better because they are slightly less evil than the Republicans, or like the nonsense above that says they have no choice but to be evil.

Either way, since the Dems freely admit they are the party of evil, lets just start calling them the Evilcrats.

A jackass is still a wonderful symbol for that party. But maybe we should just give it little red horns and put a pitchfork in a paw.

The unbelievable desperation and lack of class that the Clinton campaign is showing is amazing. Her most loyal support that I have heard on talk radio, has come from Blacks. All this in spite of the fact that Hillary didn't even bother to sign the Black Caucus objections to the rampant election fraud that put Bush in power back in power in 2004. Bill Clinton even quipped that Bush won the election fair and square. In other words they pushed their loyal Black followers under the bus in deference to their friend and political ally George Bush.
Now she pays extreme disrespect to the heroic and historic sacrifices of Martin Luther King, implying that the corrupt LBJ had more to do with advancing civil rights then King.
Democracy is pointless if we abuse it to elect a Clinton or a Bush.

With the United States record of presidents elected, the decision for picking a president should be handed over to the United Nations. In times past the world looked up to the president, now once they are elected there seems to be no control of them. They make up their own rules and disregard any and all rules and laws they disagree with.
The president is selected according to monetary backing, the only country in the world. Comparable to a military
grab.

glenn goodman had a good point "Now she pays extreme disrespect to the heroic and historic sacrifices ..implying that.. LBJ had more to do with advancing civil rights then King"

"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Mrs. Clinton said when asked about Mr. Obama's rejoinder by Fox's Major Garrett after her speech in Dover. "It took a president to get it done.

Did she really say that out loud? That the president was responsible for the success of the civil rights movement? NO. even the simplest thinkers can see, if written, the role of Johnson would read something like "facing the threat of mass public criticism and outrage, the president falls in line."

I think by giving the majority of the credit to Johnson, H. Clinton trivializes the bravery and suffering and valiant efforts on the parts of the civil rights activists, as well as the efforts of politicians in the Congress, and elsewhere. Johnson used his high rank to his advantage, yes, but he ran, fewer risks for doing so, he had most of a nation in mourning offering their support for the bill first introduced by their fallen president JFK.

"And then he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed" A bit too concise.

And so, the Democratic smack-down begins!
It's a wide open race after NH. Maybe, now that it's a horserace, we will actually get to hear some dueling rhetoric between the candidates regarding REAL change, the kind of change that John Edwards is talking about.

We don't need a woman, a black man, a white man, a uniter, a smooth talker or a negotiater as president, what WE NEED is a FIGHTER, and Edwards is a fighter. He has been knocking the chip off the shoulder of corporate America since he got out of law school, and they're afraid to get in the ring with him or even talk about it.

The only way to take power from these bastards is to beat it out of them, and that is what John Edwards is all about!
EDWARDS '08

Hillary has had 35 years to make a change in the USA, and it's still the same sell out to corporate lobbyist groups. So when she harps on experience, there's the evidence. It is time for a long overdue change from Hillary. Send that carpet bagger back to Arkansas with the rest of the pigs. Sooey, sooey Hillahog.

Hillary: Ask not what Lyndon Johnson did for John Kennedy but what John Kennedy did for Lyndon Johnson. Provided him with a heart and brain is what I think.

Very dirty tactics by Hillary to scare Obama and his supporters regarding possible assassination on account of his progressive talk a la John F. Kennedy.

Disgusting but might have worked some. Hillary appears to have reversed Obama's 10 point advantage going into the polls, virtually overnight.

However keep in mind that NH is a 94% caucasian state and it went 55% for Bush in 2004 and the Dems allow Independents and Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary. Oddly the Republican turnout is lower than the Democratic turnout this primary by some 30,000 voters and the Democratic turnout is way above normal.

Hillary's win is likely a result of NH Republicans thinking she is the easier to beat and feeling weakening the Dems is their only chance to win the general election.

I'm still convinced that John Edwards, who made his fortune as the brilliant legal brain David taking on an army of corporate Goliaths to win financial justice for clients who had suffered terrible injuries, is the best person for the job. He has NOT taken any money from corporate interests whatsoever. Look at what happened when he came in second in Iowa. MSM made it a race between Obama and Hilary. Edwards is more liberal. But I figure what the corporations want the corporations will probably get, a Hilary Clinton/Barak Obama ticket. I base this conjecture on what the MSM has been doing and, eerily enough, an 87 year old mother who has been predicting that ticket as the winner since mid-2006. She says her "psychic" tells her. She has predicted winners several times before. She also predicts that Hilary Clinton will become a great president. No further insights on Obama's political future. There is not a single Republican candidate this time around who could hold a candle to ANY of the Democratic candidates as president. I admire much about Ron Paul. But we do not need a Libertarian president either. And McCain has sold out to what the core voters in the Republican Party want. BTW- Hilary Rodham Clinton HAS been working behind the scenes with her exquisite legal mind, mostly on behalf of America's children helping the Children's Defense Fund out of Washington, DC. She was on the Who's Who list of the top 100 US attorneys.

I agree with you urthsong, John Edwards is the person we need right now to take on the corporate-military-media-industrial-complex and beat them. Edwards is the only one saying anything about what really needs to be done.
EDWARDS '08

Caption is sposed to read-

"Hil and Bill wave goodbye to American jobs due to NAFTA"

An article that contains 'faux' 'news' three times is irrelevant to me.
As irrelevant as Mrs. Clinton. Her husband was a disappointment
and she will make no difference. If You are the 'right' candidate
You don't need to spend hundreds of millions of inflated dollars
to become elected. Word of mouth should do and listening closely
to what leaves the mouth's of the whole candidate pack should
give You the shivers.
We might have only a short time left on earth for various reasons.
Let's demand a President that answers US, not one that suffocates
us.
Hillary and Billy Boy. Take a break. Withdraw your nomination, make
a nice long vacation and life happily ever after.
You will suffer tremendously if you don't and tears won't cut it this time.

Great posts here, and I agree with most of them. But, have you all forgotten that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, fixed, rigged, absconded with, etc.?? Why are people spending so much time on this election after Kerry clearly won in 2004?? Since the MSM won't do the digging for you, I will. See:
http://www.stealingamerica.org/ and,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2615703918066275099&q=Clinton+Curtis&total=77&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

The only campaign I gave any money to is Ron Paul's because, although I don't agree with everything he stands for, I want to see his message get out. His message is that we've lost our Bill of Rights and need to get back to the Constitution if we want to ever see democracy again.

The only hope I have left is that America wakes up and starts the much needed revolution soon (before the Haliburton detention camps are all built: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=viewArticle&code=%20SC20060206&articleId=1897 ).

From all I've researched over the last few years, I believe the "elite" will put Hillary in the WH to finish the neocon's job of royally screwing up the Middle East and carrying out AIPAC's plan to bomb Iran. Bill's a member of the CFR and has been chummy with Bush 1 for a while now. Hillary's been to Bilderberg where all he important decisions are really made. Do some digging, I'll get you started:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html

Got to be careful about that charisma factor. Lots of people have had some kind of charisma, including Hitler and Charles Manson. What's important isn't just the ability of a leader to inspire loyalty and such. What's portant is where the leader leads.
Every candidate talks a good game, but it's just talk. Once elected, how many of them walk their talk? (Especially when that talk changes depending on what a particular audience wants to hear!)
If you answered "not very damn many," move to the head of the class.
Instead of being enraptured by somebody telling you what you want to hear at this pre-election moment, it's a good idea to look over that somebody's history to see if their actions ever bore out what they said they believed.
That will eliminated just about eveyone who's currently running.

Or you could do the traditional thing and vote for the person who's the best liar.

Liberty & Justice,

SJ

www.spartacusjones.com

There is no perfect candidate, there are only seriously flawed ones. When attempting to choose between such as these emotion is the last refuge of the terminally silly.

Regardless of who wins the election this nation will continue on its path of corporate facism, they are, each and every one of them, sold lock,stock and barrel to the large camapign check. Hope wont feed the poor, cure the sick or educate the children, Obama and all his hope wont get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. He has no experience whatsoever and thus may be an even bigger fraud than Hillary.

Dont even get me started on the GOP selections....bah. I will continue to vote and register third party.

Good list of Hillary's defects, COMarc, but you failed to include her support of the flag burning amendment.

Here's contribution to the Civil Rights Lesson. Not sure how accurate this is. You may want to research yourself.

Black Box Voting Article on New Hampshire

New Hampshire Towns Won When Voting With Paper Ballots
Clinton 45
Obama 83

New Hampshire Towns Won When Voting With Diebold Machines
Clinton 59
Obama 38

"But, have you all forgotten that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, fixed, rigged, absconded with, etc.??"

It can't happen here--but it is increasingly the answer that makes the most sense only one week after the frightening NYTimes magazine expose of voting machine unreliability:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html

But then what other mandate can you expect from a Supreme court that appointed Bush?

Say when you will about polls, but ALL of the polls, reflected the increasing margin for Obama. The Clintons were desperate, disheartened--fast losing relevance and cash--the bandwagon was leaving the station and it wasn't theirs. The pundits are in a quandry--how could it be?? How could they be not only wrong, but so wrong? It was the old women, they claimed, but the one I watched this morning--said they all saw the roads jammed with cars for Obama events--and packed overflowing halls for Obama--while the turnout for the Clintons (yes the Clintons) was small--paltry--and what about the hugh turnout--there was no indication of enthusiasm for Clinton. The pundits come right up to the brink--re-running, rationalizing, re-working,spinning searching--what could it be, where were we wrong? They never cross the obvious line drawn, because, of course, it can't happen here.

What happened in Iowa must not happen again. It would be difficult to give Obama the Dean treatment--the folks back home are getting clued into that, but they still believe in the sacredness--the pureness of their singular beacon of democracy. Recall the long voting lines at the last election, the general demeanor of Bush--as a loser--not his cocky, brash bravado--and remember they pinned it all on the evangelicals and the "values" voter. Now watch the dynamic repeat itself--the dispirited Clinton campaign, the hugh turnout, the rationale spun into conventional wisdom. On top of that--the returns. Ever notice the returns barely--from start to finish, moved from 36% for Obama to 39% for Clinton%? I went to sleep before the final count but when I woke this morning it was 39 to 36. I tell you there is something fishy.
Something stinks in New Hampshire and since there is so much invested in the Bush-Clinton dynasty it is going to be stinking up your town soon too.

Ardee, you are dead on. Sold lock, stock, and barrell. Yes, AND its more than just corporate contributions. In politics as in high end corp shit, the Players are "brought along", they are "vetted" by old hands in the power structure who act as "Rabbi's" or what the kids call "mentors". As a small example, the relation between Averill Harriman and Nixon & Roy Cohn when those two worthies were "fresh fish" in the political game. That's how they got their connection to HUAC that launched their careers during McCarthy. The same happens in the corp sphere.

This is no touchy feely crap, these are "made Men", deadly Players, who cull the herd of power seekers and bring along the next generation of deadly Players, and not for their Sunday virtues. You don't get to the top of the shit-pile if you ain't been vetted. That's why they call it a Political System. The webs of these networks are nearly as labarynthine as the web of intermarriage among the Richfilth animals. Networks. Food chains. Power struggles. We have nothing to do with any of it.

In Los Angeles they say it takes 5 people to get anything done in the City. BUT you have to know who those five people are. If you're not in the Circles of Power, you never do, and they ain't the elected folks. These are the people THEY go to in order to get anything done.

Its all about unaccountable POWER. That's why I call the US a Plantation society: Masters, Overseers, Vassals. Vassals are nothing but meat for the machine. As far as Richfilth are concerned, this is THEIR Empire, and Democracy is when the inmates run the asylum, cannot be allowed. Richfilth don't like Democracy, never have. The Plantation is run by the Overseers (se Politicial Candidates)for the benefit of Master. Vassals got no say in the matter. Frank Herbert in Chapterhouse Dune in the middle of the Ray-gun experience, called it straight: The tyranny of the minority cloaked in the mask of the majority. True then. Truer now.

It's the Richfilth. We get them or we get Representative Government, not both. Who will free you from the chains Master has clamped on your lives? Or you can forget the question entirely, sit back, and watch the greatest purveyor of violence in the world collapse into smoking rubble, The Former United States of America. Richfilth don't really care, their wealth is now off-shore in multiple currencies, silver, gold, and commodities. They make it when things go up. They make just as much when things are sent to Hell. The US is being sent to Hell and nobody can stop the Richfilth from their "profit taking". Scream. Scream. Scream. You will be hearing a lot of that.

Peace.

"We're in it for the long run...": Hilary Clinton in her victory speech, New Hampshire, 9th January 2008.

"In the long run, we're all dead": John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946), Economist.