Who gives a hoot if the schoolgirls chased Osama or he chased them. He's in with the military-industrial complex, war, weapons, Israel, etc. That's enough to not vote for him.

Besides, the GOP will tear him apart. He's admitted to taking drugs in his younger days and he has a Muslim father. Dems don't really want to win anyway, and with him as the candidate they will get their wish.

JOHN EDWARDS 2008

"Preposterously short primary season"? It feels like it's been going on for 20 years already.

Yeah MEYOUWEUS, well that is a fabrication of the truth by the Kucinich "spokes person". Edwards is not up to his eyeballs in money from anyone. He has not accepted any lobbyists money. He invested in stocks and so what? Nothing he did was illegal or unethical, and many people play the market.

The point is, Edwards will fight the lobbying in DC and he will win that fight, he knows how to do that. Kucinich got even with Hillary and Edwards for attempting to have him off the debates. Kucinich should have been angry for that, but he should not have allowed his anger to become a petty, get even act. He made a deal with Obama and that is the words from Obama'a campaign comittee personel. "He made a deal". that's a deal that will hurt everyone, you, me, everyone, __ except big business and Obama.

MeYouWeUs - If that is Kucinich's reasoning it is weak at best, and total BS at worst. Obummer has made a major point of stating that he does not take money directly from lobyists, while he has his coffers filled by those same lobbyists through back channels.

The did you see the NH vote at midnight last night?

Obama got seven votes, Edwards got two votes, and Clinton got diddly!

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/01/08/hampshire-primary.html

The debate on Newsworld is whether or not Clinton will stay in the race. They figure Edwards will for sure because he is a "populist."

Henry Champ (above link's video) says that Clinton is out. Non-online stuff is less sympathetic to her tears and blames them on desperation.

This is CTV's coverage:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080107/primary_NH_080108/20080108?hub=TopStories

celebrity: are you really such a zealot for Kucinich that you can't see what's important about the Obama phenomenon? I mean, have some historical perspective for cripe's sake!

I'm astonished at how simple-minded people are when it comes to Obama. Its telling that his support comes mostly from naive young voters who don't have much experience of what it takes to be an effective Democratic President.

His message of hope is nice, but its not a good strategy for running the country. The Reps will play hardball with his conciliatory approach and his policy inititives will either fail or be buried with loopholes and pork.

I realize Clinton don't stir the soul in the same way as Obama, but we don't need a speechwriter-in-chief - we need a President who can push a liberal agenda and knows how and when to compromise to move it forward. Obama doesn't have the skills to do it. Maybe in 8 years or so, but not yet.

Picking him would be yet another stupid mis-step by naive, idealistic, impratical, unstrategic, undisciplined liberals.

Aljazeera has a video of "Barry" Obama's school days. Seems as if he used to chase the girls - and that it was mutual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt-KUUlJ81g

I probably won't vote for a Democrat or Republican in November, but I'm impressed, and I agree with Jesse Jackson. It's good to feel good about something. For a change.

Kem - I am in complete agreement with all your points. But that still does not explain what it was that Kucinich was supposed to be "getting even" with Edwards for. I don't like his judgment on that at all. 1) I think he backed the wrong person, for all the reasons I have already stated many times.
2) I think going public with his support for a "second choice" shows serious ineptitude.

But I am still looking for something concrete on the accusations I have seen that Kuchinich did this specifically to spite Edwards. What exactly would he have against Edwards?

Sorry for the repeat there on my last post, I got confused as to where I was here again and it was supposed to be on another thread. __ Me stoopid, hit me in the face.

scroll down the main page to an article entitled "The Tyranny of Superdelegates" - I think it was maybe 4 days ago? Assuming the information in the article and my mathematics are correct, Hillary has too much useful intra-party support to just drop out due to a couple bad opening primaries. If she continues to come up short through Super Tuesday, she might call it quits, but those superdelegates have given her a heck of an advantage in the numbers game. She's also the only Top 3 Democrat on the now defunct Michigan primary ballot - that could be big if those delegates are eventually seated in her corner.

That being said, I don't think she's going to win, nor do I want her to. But I don't expect her to just fold.

yes, lets feel good about ourselves above all else even though we continue to devastate countries and peoples all
around the world--we even let one of our own cities drown.
Obama/Oprah's answer is self-esteem.

as far as DK...his reason for stearing votes towards obama and not edwards is....

"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.

While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests." - D.K.

Obama's policies are tailored to maintain the corporate-conservative militarist imperial status quo: the American corpocracy. The point made by Celebrity above is the crucial idea here. What is exciting about an African American Democratic Party candidate who advocates more policies that will harm our own people, the world, and maintain the two-party duopoly? I hope Jesse comes to his senses. I hope Nader runs independently or with the Green Party. I hope the Green Party runs strong. Obama's charisma is hypnosis folks. See through his corporate/conservative/militarist propaganda. Read Paul Street's articles at ZMag.org.

The LOBBYISTS for giant corporations will insure, we don't have fair and affordable health insurance and affordable medicines. They will insure that if they want war, we will have war. If they want nuclear energy, that is what we will have, if they want to have products manufactured in China and insure the giant corporations make obscene profits at our expense, out-source jobs, that is what will happen.

All of that and much more already is occurring, __ it is self evident. Our government is now fully controlled by giant corporations, that's Fascism. That is what we have and most of us are only just recently becoming aware of it. Many believe Obama will change it, __ he won't. Edwards will if he is elected. __ He won't be, __ Kucinich insured that, his 8 to 10% of the Iowa vote went to Obama, that was a 16 to 20% swing for Obama. Edwards would have won Iowa and would have had decent press coverage.

mr. jackson , you will never stop making every single issue in this whole wide world=about color.get over it, how would your life be if your ancestors had never come,here ?africa has been fraught with wars, famine,droughts and destruction.get over it-in this land we are all coffee-colored.i do agree that the nomination of obama might bring some peace at last,to africa...but only if the africans give up all their uranium , without a fight.i don't blame you for supporting obama , you must then also be in favor of nuclear energy to power our world , not to worry , you have plenty of company there , plenty of stupid,insane people of all colors.i come from a family of civil rights leaders , not one of my ancestors was out running the jungle stealing negroes.and i am getting damn sick of you pushing that down my throat.the most disenfranchised and oppressed peoples within our nation at this time in our history , are not the race of negroes , it is the poor....middle age white women ...young white men...they are the ones unable to find assistance or jobs.i speak for myself , but i am happy your ancestors came to america ,the beautiful,soulful rhythms of africa , blended so beautifully with the hymns of worship and pretty melodies,of the europeans and together gave birth to my favorite music-the blues.

"Obama/Oprah's answer is self-esteem."

OK, but wait a minute. Don't get things twisted, please - while I am no fan of politicians or anybody else tugging on people's heartstrings for self-serving interests, self-esteem is and will continue to be important. Example? 9/11. People who would have otherwise thought twice about giving up "some of their rights" gladly did so in the face of Shock and Awe politics. That was a self-esteem issue - if people weren't so strongly battered by everything from overwork to debt to whatever, maybe they wouldn't have been so quick to react emotionally.

But back to Obama. Jesse's right - the country is in a mess, and I'm sorry folks, we do need hope here, and lots of it. What we do NOT need is hope and nothing more, which is what I hear underneath what some of you are saying. Unfortunately, the US being in a mess also effects the rest of the world as well - which means we have a responsibility to fix this mess, even though most of us were subjegated by it, rather than profiting from it. Whether Obama is part of the fixing process (which is what can and should follow a rather peppy "healing process," and I don't mean making nice with the GOP "leadership" either) or not remains to be seen.

What is clear, to me at least, is that one way or another, the post-9/11 path needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, and sooner rather than later. Personally, I don't invest a lot of faith (heh) in electoral politics in the US, but I have no problems with people pushing for change from within the DP, if that is even possible. I have my strong reservations, but am more than open to people proving me wrong.

vaudree wrote:

"Aljazeera has a video of "Barry" Obama's school days. Seems as if he used to chase the girls - and that it was mutual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt-KUUlJ81g"

And this proves.....what? He was a kid, for chrissakes. We all do stupid things when we're kids. Goodness knows I sure had my share of stupid moments growing up.

Is this an attempt to drag the distant past into this election to try to prove, what, that Obama was once a "womanizer", even though he was just a kid when he did the things described on the video?

Geez, the depths that people will go to in order to try to derail a successful candidacy....... Sheesh.

Betcha you could find some old skeleton in Hillary's closet, too, from her childhood. Or from any candidate's childhood. Was anybody a perfect angel during their elementary school years? (Or for that matter, even including middle and high school years? Or even college?)

Certainly none of us is or has ever been a saint. No one, and I mean no one, is perfect. Period. Every candidate has some flaw that could easily be exploited by the opposition and blown way out of proportion. That's what's wrong with the way campaigns are conducted anymore. They eventually just break down and the candidates become angry attack dogs going after their opposition until they've worn them down enough to break.

Is that any way for us to judge our future leaders? No wonder things in this country are so skewed and screwed up.

I have yet to figure out why a black candidate who supports nuclear power, continuing the Iraq War, and corporate health insurance deserves my vote. He may end up being another Clarance Thomas. No thanks, I'll pass this time around.

I thought we were to judge people based upon the content of their character and not the color of thier skin. I thought this was the ideal?

Therefore I do not want a candidate who is Pro-AIPAC, Pro-Iraq and soon to be Iran war. Vote Obama? No Thanks.

I was walking down the street and this fella caught my eye or I caught his, we were walking the same direction and eventually he stopped and said I prefer if you didn't walk behind me, and there was fear in his eyes and it was tense. I though it must be because I'm black, then I thought wait a minute I'm not black.

celebrity and SallyUUKent - not everything which looks like fluff is fluff. Have either of you read the Satanic Verses by Salmon Rushdie? Mick Jagger named his daughter after the Obama-like character in the book - Georgia May Ayeesha Jagger.

RE: - And this proves…..what? He was a kid, for chrissakes. We all do stupid things when we're kids.

Charisma - "Barry" had the ability to project charisma! That this movie-star quality that everyone refers to today existed way back then.

You (both of you) never watched the video and how proud the school is of their former student nor have you heard the teacher talking about how Obama, if he wins, might inspire other students to believe that if "Barry" could do it, they could too.

Finally, I don't see a video talking about Hillary Clinton's or John Edwards's school years or childhood yet and you know why Because they think that Obama (out of all of them) is the one everyone wants to know more about. They are trying to answer, in what you call a silly way, the question: who is Obama?

The thing is that the Aljazeera video points to the need to know more about Obama - it also signals a shift between the preliminary superficialness of wondering who is going to be the frontrunners to wanting to know more about what the frontrunners stand for and what they are about. That is what it means when they start bringing out the school pictures.

RE: - it is a great day in America that a black man can become the democratic front runner

I hate your cutting the guy in half and discarding the other half. It is the unity of the two halves which makes Obama the personification of hope and harmony - even as they finally admit you are in the middle of a recesssion.

As far as a Black or a Woman President/Prime Minister goes, getting there is half the job. The other half is the legacy you leave after you leave office. Obama is no Mandela now, though he might be in the future. And Hillary Clinton may not be as bad as Margaret Thatcher - but I see her as being as affective in office as a Paul Martin (who spent all his time trying to become PM and who seemed lost what to do when he finally got there).

I would like to see either Obama or Nader as Edwards Vice President. Nader because he would get the corruption out and Obama because, as VP, it puts him in a better place to run from next time. Personally, I think Nader would be more effective than Obama as VP but that a Edwards-Obama ticket has a better chance of winning.

RE: - You don't look at who is giving money to his campaign, now that he looks like a winner, and conclude that he is "beholden" to them.

Sure you do. BTW - have you been following the Karlheinz Schreiber story? You know that guy who gave that beautiful eulogy at Ronnie Reagan's funeral, Brian Mulroney - don't you wonder what he's been up to as of late? Or even how he came to be Prime Minister in the first place?

That guy in the Democrat debate with the round face - he looked at Edwards as being naive when Edwards talked of getting the smooch money out of politics - and I bet he is up to his eyeballs in it.

RE: -

RE: -

RE: -

mr. jackson, with all due respect , your act is wearing thin , it is time for you to change the channel. women are also in need of breaking the great divide of prejudice .aren't there enough insanely wealthy black people in this country , yet, to satisfy you ? you and all compassionate people should be out campaigning for the least among us and the largest growing category , ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN WORDS AND YOUR OWN ARTICLE=THE POOR......THE POOR,start speaking up mr. jackson ,for the ones who really need and would really benefit from your righteous indignation=THE POOR !!!IT IS NO LONGER A MATTER OF COLOR , THE POOR AMONG US COME IN ALL COLORS......and they are the fastest growing population.

NO!!! Obama in the White House will make us all losers. Not sayng Obama is a bad man, or unfit to hold the office. And Obama is very smart, __ but do we really want another SMART politician. The most serious problems we have with our government will NOT be corrected by Obama, Clinton, McCain or any of the candidates, ___ except for one, __John Edwards.__ He is the only one who will end the lobbying in washington DC.

That continual lobbying, is precicely why our government is now FULLY controlled by big business and giant corporations. As Theadore Rosevelt so well stated. 'When the government is controlled by big business, Democracy is destroyed and you have Fascism'. We have Fascism now, we do not have a Democracy and 'we the people' have no voice. That is self evident,__ the results speak for themselves.

If the corporations want war, they get war, if they want to insure the middle and lower income classes have no chance to have adequate and affordable health insurance, that is what happens, if they want our industries to move to other countries, so as to improve the profits of a very few, that is what they get. If they want nuclear energy instead of truly clean energy, they get nuclear.

Lobbying insure that the corporations get what they desire. John Edwards would end that crime against us, 'we the people'. He is the only one who will. His chances of being our Presient have been ruined, by the petty disease of "get-even-itus", spread by Dennis Kucinich in Iowa.

Obama may have dark skin but inside he's as white as ivory. I suggest Jesse Jackson read some of Glenn Ford's excellent insightful and factual essays at Blackagendareport.com. Don't be fooled by the outside package. Obama plays to the tune of the 'great' white male.

YOU DON'T VOTE FOR ISSUES FOR PRESIDENT.

YOU VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

You have to look at the man, look at his background, listen to him and listen also to what he said years ago before the giant eye of the corporate media was on him, before he had to court a winning coalition.

You don't look at who is giving money to his campaign, now that he looks like a winner, and conclude that he is "beholden" to them.

You don't listen to campaign slogans and conclude that there is nothing behind them, or that they hide evil intentions.

The best guide to Obama's intentions is his history. And if you bother to look, bother to read about his roots, read his books, you will see that he is really one of us.

I think this was pretty good article from JJ. He got it right on a number of counts, it is a great day in America that a black man can become the democratic front runner, but let us not forget that Colin Powell might be a likely candidate on the Republican side had he not so badly discredited himself as secretary of state. It is a shame though that our first Black man to become a major party front runner in a presidential primary campaign is such a shining example of BULLSHIT, lots of meaningless catch phrases, good framing, but under it all..... Just another typical corporate shill.

"He's got the "Big M's": magnetic personality, magic moment, message, money and momentum." Would that be BO has the BM's? his message is nothing but meaningless rhetoric. A nebulous cloud of platitudes for the sound bite generation.

KEM PATRICK January 8th, 2008 1:43 pm "Lobbying insure that the corporations get what they desire. John Edwards would end that crime against us, 'we the people'. He is the only one who will. His chances of being our Presient have been ruined, by the petty disease of "get-even-itus", spread by Dennis Kucinich in Iowa."

Would you please elaborate on this statement KEM. I feel like I missed something. I mean the "get-even-itus" part that is.

Nader2000 - He may be one of you, a Mainstream Democrat, but he is not one of the us that I identify with.

Yes, if obama wants my vote he better get off the Nuke train, there are many alternatives to nuke power, including reparing our electrical grid, old transformers and the rest, of the system east of the Mississippi, are in bad shape and at least 28 to35 powerplants could be shut down with upgrades to the electrical infrastructure, for sure, the power suckers don't want that, paychecks, clipping coupons for the royalty, they don't want alternative independent energy households, hell that would eliminate their cash flow, and they might have to WORK, "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich..." Napolean

I think Obama is a very good man, I like several candidates. I'm not a one issue person. The only candidate who will stop the destructive lobbying, is John Edwards. If any others are elected, nothng of any significance in our government, or our country will change. And I do believe, we all want change. Change is Obama's pledge. It is a false pledge, because he won't change anything, he won't be able to even if he intends to, unless he pledges to end the lobbying and then does that. Lobbying is the key.

Don't matter who wins, Israel will always win while lobbyists exist, they are the boils on the backside of US politics once lanced the relief will be instant, as those leeches are removed

Cynthia McKinney 2008, an African American, a woman and someone that I could vote for without needing to go home and shower afterward. Just a thought, I am still hopeful that the dims will not be so dumb as to nominate Obummer. I still have not made up my mind about Edwards, but the more the MSM downplays him the more I am think he might be the real deal. And I still like Kuchinich, though I'd like to understand this "get-even-itus" stuff, the implications do not leave me nearly as warm and fuzzy as I would like to be.

The other thing that comes up suggesting that it's a personal thing would be that discussion between Clinton and Edwards supposedly about limiting the field of debaters, which would presumably exclude Kucinich.
It would be speculation to say that this is why he did it when he sites other reasons. And it's a fox thing so I don't try to give it to much weight.

Listen to the wisdom of N2K above!

It doesn't matter what the candidate has to say about the issues.

It doesn't matter which corporations have bought and paid for the candidate.

AS long as there is a "D" next to the person's name, THAT'S THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB!

N2K--Stop with the "us" business. YOU are one of THEM--just like Obama--not one of US. Look at the banner under the Common Dreams logo: It says "News and Views for the PROGRESSIVE Community," not the "Corporate-imperialist-Democrats-are-always-right-and-don't-you-dare -forget-it Community."

Why do we get candidates who promise everything and give us nothing? Because if they give us nothing, they will be richly rewarded and accepted into the highest and phoniest social circles. If they give us what they promise, they're justifiably afraid they will be assassinated. They have lots to gain and everything to lose. The people are ingrates but the oligarchy that owns them is not.

Progressive is as progressive does.

Helping the Republicans win elections - is that progressive?

But no, not all Democrats deserve to be called progressive. Far too few of them do.

Obama is one, for anyone who cares to take an honest look.

RE: - Is this an attempt to drag the distant past into this election to try to prove, what, that Obama was once a "womanizer"

No! But since you raised the topic, why do politicians cheat? They cheat when they become insecure about their charisma - when they feel like they might be losing this magnetism which draws people to them. The act of adultery is used to make that fear that they have lost their spark which draw people to them go away. It is their way of reassuring themselves that they still have charisma - despite their dark hour.

Then again, some like Kennedy and Rene Levesque were perpetually insecure even during their high points.

Why is everyone pressuring Obama to run now (rather than in four years when he has a bit more experience) - because they see charisma as something fleeting and want to take advantage of his while he still has it.

RE: - I realize Clinton don't stir the soul in the same way as Obama

Hillary Clinton had been ahead from the start so she feels as if she is losing ground - a feeling shared by her advisors - and she is starting to panic. Whatever charisma she has goes away when she panics. If she finishes badly in NH, it gives the impression of her campaign imploding - even if she is not doing much different than Edwards. If Edwards comes in second again, it will be hard for Clinton to come back.

RE: - The point is, Edwards will fight the lobbying in DC and he will win that fight, he knows how to do that.

Was Edwards turning all questions into a debate over the need to get lobbying out of Washington during the debate an effective or ineffective strategy?

We all seem to agree that he is right (ie Oil lobby - they are against the implimentation of Kyoto; Medical Insurance lobby - they are against single payer health care; Gun Lobby, Military Lobby, etc).

However, was it effective during the debate? And, whether it was or not, it is the foundation of whatever it is that Edwards is Planning. Elizabeth had these sneaky smiles as if she figured Edwards was up to something that seemed more harmless to his opponents than it will turn out to be.

Back to Charisma, Jim Jones's son gave a pretty good discussion of the topic. Everyone keeps talking about Obama and Koolaide:

Stephan Jones
The Jonestown massacre is one of the most notorious mass suicides in history. More than 900 people died there. The quasi-socialist spiritual utopia turned hell on earth was founded by the Reverend Jim Jones.

Stephan Jones, son to Reverend Jim Jones, talks about religion, drug addiction, and even wanting to murder his father.

Stephan Jones did not take part in the suicide as he was away, playing basketball with the People's Temple Basketball team.

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1459

This article is about the Edwards investment in the hedge fund Fortress. Weak or not it's worth knowing isn't it?

http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/865

Last Friday, when Bill Noyers asked Kucinich why he had endorsed Obama in Iowa, Dennis dodged the question, saying only that it was personal. If the reason was what his committee says is is now, why did he refuse to say so then? ___ It was PERSONAL. It was therefore petty and get "evenitus".

VAUDREE, Have you ever met Elizabeth Edwards? You write that John Edwards wife was giving sneaky smiles? She is attempting to smile while possibly dying of incurable breast cancer. Elizabeth Edwards is NOT sneaky,___ she is a truly wonderful person.

For you to write such incredibe assumptions about her is despicable. Wherever you are in Canada, please go dig a deep hole there and crawl into it. Don't they have some web-sites about Canada you can spout your continual crap and silly questions about American politics and laws on? You argue or write some comment with almost every post from others with your WISDOM. Your 'wisdom' is pathetic blabbering and usually contributes nothing of any worth.

I agree with Jesse Jackson. This is an historic moment. America does not need another Clinton presidency, wherein the Neo-Con agenda was advanced beyond belief and the fascist/corporatist takeover of America was allowed to grow exponentially. Mr. Obama may not be all America needs, but just his poise, intelligence, and difference may be a good start.

My personal choice, Kucinich, sadly did not catch fire, and he asked that any of his voters in Iowa go to Obama. That is an endorsement I am heeding. Plus, I think it will be fun to throw a curveball at the world... America elects a black man named Barak Obama... the world will definitely be amazed and its view of America changed, for the better.

And besides, having just read Naomi Klein's great, seminal book, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, THE RISE OF DISASTER CAPITALISM, I look back on the Clinton Administration's actions with horror. The Clintons SOLD US OUT, people. They were the ones who made deals with the devils. They were Milton-ites and 'Chicago Boys' and globalizationists, and 'free'-traders and Corporatists and Militarists and Greenspan-ites and Davos-devotees all the way. They now feel it is their right to rule, like any good fascist/imperialist family. They react with shock that 'the people' don't love them unquestioningly, and shocked that someone challenges them.

But America and Liberal Progressives lost their way during the Clinton presidency, by way of its triangulating, obfuscating, doublespeaking political spinjobs, by way of thinking if Rush Limburger says the Clintons are Leftwing Liberals then it must be so. The rise of the Republican Congress, of the K St Project, of equivocation and triagulating all came about under the Clinton years. The mythical "political Center" was moved far to the right under Clinton. So now the Center is deemed to be the "Left".

The rise of the millionaire-celebrity-infotainment journalists, the Telecommunications giveaway, utility deregulation, the deconstruction of the social contract...on and on, this is what Clinton gave us under the guise of the 'New' Democrat, which was basically the DLC version of the old Rockefeller Republican. And as the Center moved Right, the Right moved to the Far-Right, as the greed-driven right-wing whores will not ever be satisfied until the states start selling 'naming rights' to themselves, and the states of EXXON, WASTE MANAGEMENT, IBM, YAHOO, GOOGLE, FORD, MICROSOFT, TOYOTA, and WALMART are born. And of course, Ron Paul wants us to go all the way back to the Dark Ages and feudalism... every man for himself.

Why would anyone want another Clinton presidency? Not to mention if Clinton is elected it would mean 36-straight-years (!!!) of Bush-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton in the White House. If Clinton is elected because it is "her turn", the US must offically change its name to the United States of STUPID.

And Mr. Edwards, while he talks a good game, has not walked the walk. He lost the Veep debate in 2004 to Dick Cheney of all people, so I am not so sure he would be effective in the general election. And his personal gigantic mansion, his low environmental score with the LCV, and his partnering with a Wall Street Hedge Fund, do not give me confidence. Anyway, without a Democratic Congress, his plans, and those of Kucinich too, are moot, and will be constantly blocked by right-wing Republican pinheads.

So, that is my perspective. I am with Obama as the best choice we have now for change. Just his election will be enormous change. So let's start with this. Thank you, Mr. Jackson, for pointing that out.

Maybe so…
But it's forgivable, it's a rather smallish beef to have with him.
Got any feedback about the Edwards link?

People who question Elizabeth Edwards character should read her book, "Saving Graces". She is an honest person, as is John Edwards, and they are the only ones speaking the truth about the corporations, money, greed and government.

They need everyones help now to get the message out, even if John is not the nominee, and I certainly wouldn't give up that hope now. EDWARDS '08

MeYouWeUs -
At the end of the article you recommended by David Swanson is the following line:
"David Swanson was press secretary for Kucinich for President 2004 and briefly consulted for Kucinich's O8 campaign."

Oh well, so much for an unbiased view on that one.

MeYouWeUSs. Forgiveable? That's like shooting someone in the head while they are being held up. That could be forgiven too. The damage is done. Had Kucinich not done that, endorsed no one, madeno deals, the Iowa vote may very well have been VERY close. He was wrong for whatever his reason. If he had a good reason, he should have said so long ago. Why didn't he? His actions stink, a very bad smell.

It was close as it was, Edwards got over 80,000 votes, which isn't exactly horrible, he did come in second and if Kucinich has not made a deal, he may have won. The big problem is, because Obama won, he is now percieved as the "hope for the future" by the press __ and he is anything but.

Edwards is a hope for the future because of his stand on lobbying and that has always been his stand. He saw what was happening in DC when he was a Senator and he didn't like it, it is destroying our democracy. __Already has, I want it back. __ Do you?

I have not read that link yet, but I will, even though I take dirt thrown at any candidate with some salt.

FVHorn, There won't be a Republican Congress in 08 no matter who is elected to the Presidency. If we don't have the lobbying stopped in DC, we will never have a democracy and Edwards is the only candidate running who will fight that mess. If Obama had that agenda, I would be backing him too if Edwards had no chance at all.

There's no such thing as an unbiased view...
So in your opinion that negates everything he says?
I don't see how it can, unless your looking for reasons to dismiss anything that doesn't already fit your opinions.

I became an Obama supporter the moment I realised that he is probably the only candidate on the left or right, who will make a genuine and fair effort to solve the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. I wish him well. He is a good person!