S.O.S. help, george hw bush and his legion of evil bastards......are totally convinced that the arsenal of the united states of america , belongs to them.they will steal what they can and disable the rest...STOP THEM,NOW !!! S.O.S.

If this is true, then it should serve as an object lesson to any aspiring politician not to take the "Triangulation" road when confronted by a charismatic opponent. That Obama can simply state he was against the Iraq misadventure from the beginning only increases his appeal instead of Clinton's hemming and hawing & Edwards' mea culpa (which is long overdue from Clinton, btw). Another thing to consider is the generational difference. Obama's supporters are a lot more media savvy and will be harder to "swift boat" than the older portion of the electorate.

I posted this elsewhere, but it is gone now, so I thought I'd post it again just so that it is preserved. Peace, Ken.
(P.S. itsjustkarma - awesome post..). Anyhow...

*******

I think perhaps many of us can agree on the following (although perhaps not):

1. There is no justifiable/ethical reason for the US to have a military presence in the mideast. (Of course, who cares about ethics or virtue nowadays…only 19th century hollow, lifeless scientific ideas matter….)

2. The country of the US of A is addicted to oil and other material items, and most citizens are living superficially and are disconnected from nature (which is exactly what the corporate barons foolishly and ignorantly desire and encourage as if it was no different than the beginning of railroads…).

3. Capitalism is inherently flawed, inhibits real democracy and peace, and is the direct cause of ongoing suffering of innocence.

4. All-in-all corporations in the US of A are spiritually bankrupt and the leaders of said corporations are in a state of denial. Corporate oil-based executives are perhaps the worst of the bunch (don't these individuals ever have new ideas….???)

5. The Bush Administration is a reflection of the worst of the worst of the baby boomer generation aided by the least empathetic of their elders. Amazing that they are in power, which reflects poorly on all US citizens.

6. The country of the US of A remains in a state of denial and inaction as it pertains to our direct cause of ecological collapse throughout the planet not to mention a state denial regarding our true history.

7. There appears to be no will of substance amongst so-called leaders anywhere in the world to take the critical and urgent steps necessary to address the unprecedented ecological risks we are all facing. Instead we have shams, shills, pretense, spinning and pretending all for the sake of profit and ego.

8. Fundamental religious beliefs are becoming self-fulfilling to the dismay of the vast majority of People everywhere who do not ascribe to these beliefs.

9. Lately Common Dreams has become a place of grand speculation (I don't know about you, but I'm tired of speculation particularly in regards to federal politics…).

10. There comes a time when it is better to just mind your own business and focus efforts towards encouraging cooperation in your local community (maybe I need to just listen to myself on this one and quit posting on Common Dreams altogether..).

11. The Pope and the Queen are very disappointing. All talk and no results that truly benefit humanity.

12. Well I guess 11 is enough.

Hm. That was a splendid rant, and now I'll sign out.

Ken

Where did the 'Back To The Future' Salon article go? Could You do some explaining or give the commenters the chance to continue to post? What about a 'Blank Thread', where we can come up with whatever we want to? Not like thinkprogress. More sophisticated of course. But here comes my response to the eliminated thread:

Two cents from me:

1) CNN = Compliant Nazi News

2) The Salon article is from the future and has a misprint in its body. It should read 01/12/2008… ;-)

WE ALL KNOW what needs to be done. Tell me when You are ready to do it.

In a larger context I would like to point out, that without this stinking and unjust military machine, that
deserves to go up in smoke, NOBODY, I repeat, NOBODY would have to work, everybody would have free
'global' health care, wouldn't have to pay taxes at all. Because the true costs of the american 'oppressor machine'
are tenfold then what the bills in the house reflect.
In all these fucked up bills are not included the costs for the consequences of returning brain dead 'soldiers'
shooting, raping, killing and being 'useless' members of a nation of fools, and the material losses of Killing
Equipment. Don't get me wrong. I do have respect for soldiers that do a mandatory civil duty, like in Germany
for 15 month. Those people don't want to go around and fight. It is the volunteers who are the culprits. And
please don't tell me about economical necessities to do so. That is utter bullshit. If economical reasons are
of concern, change your location and enroll in Your Community College. Because if You are willing to go to the
Middle East and get fucked over every day, by people who have a 'right' to defend their country, might as well
come back home and finish those guys in washington that send You there in the first place.
So any argument about 'college' or economic welfare is a stinking lie, that only the least intelligent people fall
prey to. (Hopefully there will be a Class Action Law Suit against the US forces and their fucking recruiters.

We don't even know how many rapists and killing machines like the mercenaries of 'black-filthy-water' are killed
anyway. Because there is no information available other than the numbers Your friends from the 'Armed Madhouse'
(credit to Greg Palast) are declaring.
Two million people in DC and things will change. Solely through the Dynamic of a mass of people we will be able
to change things.

Later.

WORKS FOR ME......., right on hillary and bill !! even if you lose...you will never be losers !!!

Wonder how much of that 100 mill did Bill and Hill glean off the top, once a thief always a thief

Works for me. Let the two ugly corporate titans go at each other and hopefully Edwards will emerge unscathed and triumphant. Or something like that.

No surprise there.
But I am inclined to disagree with above poster re the generational difference.
Anyone who buys into this empty noble rhetoric of starry-eyed simplistic--(and you can not get more simplistic than this)pep rally cheering devoid of content will be a sucker for any fad that comes rolling over them.

It just doesn't get any easier than this. Basically it is the institutionalized Dean movement.

Democrats = circular firing squad. Glad to see the corruption at the top of the democratic party is so willing to spend huge amounts to subvert the will of their party members.

Nice job "democrats."

Agreed Cicero although Edwards is only slightly better then those two.

No real 'Clinton/Obama" harshness will arise...I'm fearful the 'fix' is in regards a 2008 Clinton/Obama-ticket [and G-d-help us all if that-happens!]:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7693
[Click my Name -- Understand your Enemy (he is you)]

What a Outrage ! I figured Hillary would NOT go down without pulling something like this.. I am a INDEPENDENT AND PROUD OF IT!! All of My Gran Friends agree with me , it is time for the changing of the guard, Big Time! I Hope and Pray that the Unions and all of her so called Hollywood Friends see through this !! I My self am Leaning towards John Edwards Myself, BUT I still have reservations on ALL of the candidates. The MONEY they are spending should be Used to Help The Millions of folks who do not have Health Insurance, Not to Mention Ending the Damn War that is Draing this Country and Its Young Men and Women... I will Be Keeping a Very CLOSE Eye on Hillary !!!! Myrna, granforchange.. Wisconsin

They should instead put that money into the Edwards campaign and run a Edwards/Clinton ticket. Anti-Obama ads now will just help Obama. The press will insure he is the darling of the ages and those type of ads will just be looked upon as spite. Hell, when Hillary tells the truth about Obama she isn't listened to.

Whenever the once underdogs get to the top of the hill, be it in war, sports, intertainment, business, or politics, they are precieved as heroic figures. That is where Obama now rules, he's on top of the hill. Hillary is now seen as a loser, and any ads against Obama and for her, will be a total waste of money. If I were running Obama's campaign, I'd love it. Obama will answer any negative ads and the press will cover that also, giving him even more free press coverage, also the press will crap all over such ads.

I'd like to see a Edwards/Kucinich ticket, which Kucinich has now insured will never happen. Or, an Edwards/Nader ticket, but an Edwards/Hillary would be just fine with me and she has the means of getting the money needed to win, (no money from lobbyists either). With John Edwards in the White House, he would insure the DC lobbying was ended. That is the major probelm with America, and Edwards is the only one who will fight that. He knows how to win such a fight too.

If Hillary is not in the Carolina picture, Edwards will not have to split his vote with her and could do real well there.

ITSJUSTKARMA AND BUFFALO KEN

two 'awesome' posts. well said the pair of you.......you would make great president/vice president......or two presidents........
but right, what happened to the 'salon' article? another one disappeared too. not even in the archives........good idea about a 'blank' thread. pay attention C.D.

cicero

I agree. Let 'em knock each other out and Edwards step over the bodies. Might be the best thing for America.

I know campaigns where people are battling for the party nomination are always heated, but Hillary would do a LOT better by laying off the Obama attacks and instead convincing people that she's the better candidate to undo GW Bush's damage to America. That's why people are looking forward to this election -- to finally get GW OUT of the White House and bring America home again. Obama hasn't put forward any concrete plans for that urgent task at all.

I'm dismayed: The American Federation of Teachers backed Clinton?!? And now wants to help fund a Smear Obama 527!?! What might they SwiftBoat Obama with?

I see Edwards and Obama winners of any smear campaign launched by Clinton.

If Hillary was a "real" candidate her time was 2004. But the fix was in and GWB's dear sweet buddy John Kerry was the straight man.
But thats the past. I'll be honest here, I really wanted a woman and a black man in the whitehouse. For no other reason than to break down the walls. And then I thought wow, how fortunate we are to have these two qualified people to get it done. I would've backed a Clinton/Obama ticket. I felt it would have guaranteed the Dems 16 years in the Whitehouse.I don't understand the infighting, it can only lead to disaster, but heres what i now think.
The only ticket that I will trust is one with a wildcard in it. What I don't trust is all of the scripted predictability. So far, I didnt see this coming. Obama running away with this thing. So I am beginning to trust him. Clinton will not be his pick for a vp. I guarantee it. There-in lies the wildcard. He's got something very cool up his sleeve.

So THAT's why Bill was cosying up to his old enemy, Richard Mellon Scaife. He probably wanted to pick up a few tips.

Published on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 by the Chicago Sun-Times
Obama's Success Is Making Us All Winners
by Jesse Jackson
Barack Obama's stunning victory in Iowa lifts our hearts, no matter whom we support. You can't help but be touched by a brilliant, passionate African American with a message of hope winning the vote of Iowa's presidential caucuses. Although it's only a first step in a long race for Obama, it is surely a giant step for America.

Hillary is showing once again why no one outside of Wall Street should trust her. She is a scorched earth candidate who cares nothing about the Democratic Party, the integrity of the electoral process, or fair play, much less about the common people of the US. She feels she is entitled to the presidency, and has patiently waited her turn, and she is willing to do anything to get her due.

She has been dreaming for years of becoming immortalized as the first female President of the US and the first female "most powerful person in the world" since Queen Victoria. And with the help Bush and Cheney have provided in empowering the modern US president, she could quite reasonably imagine herself as having an opportunity to become the most powerful person in human history. And knowing all that and seeing it slip away was what prompted the tears and the breaking voice yesterday in that diner.

I am not much of an Obama fan (I would prefer a socialist, then Kucinich, then Edwards), but because of his background (educational, life experience, past political actions as a state senator and community organizer, and racial) a rational person may hope (yes, hope) that he may not turn out all that bad after all, despite all of his connections and donations from business interests and his stated policy positions. And a little racial healing, which the US desperately needs, could be a bonus.

Kivals,
that is without a doubt one of the most insightful and intelligent and thoughtful posts I have read on here in quite awhile. I agree with your spin on the situation.

How about Edwards/Richardson?

liberal with an attitude,

I always appreciate kind words. Thanks. And I agree that Hillary should have run in 2004 if she were going to run. I doubt that I would have supported her, but I may have been less adamantly opposed. There is something a bit too cozy about the relationship between the Bushes and the Clintons that has developed over the years, which makes me trust the Clintons even less than before, which was not much to begin with.

jonno , wonder how many twinkies , you gleaned off the top of the grocery shelf ?

It's about to get really ugly, folks. The Clintons are down but not out, not by a damn long shot. And do not doubt that if they go down, they are going to do EVERYTHING possible to take Obama down with them. They may or may not have the power and momentum to resurrect Hillary and force her nomination, but they do have plenty of money and institutional support to beat the living daylights out of Obama. Oh sure, he might get the nomination in the end, but he'll be battered, bruised and tarnished. The Clinton juggernaut will have done half the work for the GOP sleaze masters, making Obama hopelessly (yes HOPElessly) weak in the general election.

Which suits Hillary just fine. Can anyone say "Hillary '12?" Don't forget, the Clintons care about one thing and one thing only: themselves. Their power, their influence, their status. Dividing the Democratic party, generating HUGE animosity amongst the progressive community, demoralizing well meaning (if naive) Obama supporters and destroying the Democrats chances of victory in November are a small price to pay if it means they remain the pre-eminent couple of the American "left".

The comment at a Hillary rally comparing Obama to JFK and noting he was assassinated is just the beginning. Anyone who believes Hillary did not know and approve of that comment (people chosen to introduce candidates are carefully vetted and prepped) probably also believed Bill when he said "I did not have sexual relations..." And if you think that such a tactic is petty, slimey and mean spirited, oh just wait! By February 5, that little incident will seem whimsical.

The basic strategy is simple: swift-boat the hell out of Obama from now until the convention, then Hillary will give him a half hearted endorsement and sit on her hands (along with her fat cat donors and the DLC elite) throughout the fall. The bruised Obama and his demoralized supporters will then limp through another round of endless berating at the hands of the GOP. Republicans retain the White House (probably with President McCain) and the Clintons along with the DLC blame Obama, his Deaniac supporters and the progressive blogosphere for the loss. The progressive wing of the Democrats will become demoralized, frustrated and disgusted by the spectacle. Many of them once again give up on the Democrats and electoral politics. And, the DLC will regain the thorough dominance over the party it had in the '90's. In time, Hillary will emerge as a frontrunner for 2012, campaigning on the theme that we tried it the Obama-Dean progressive way last time and "we" failed.

Brilliant. Sick, but brilliant. And, it will most likely succeed.

I agree with the view that Edwards is the great variable in the war the Clintons are about to unleash against Obama. If they are successful in beating down Obama, scaring off potential supporters and turning the media against him, there will be a window, albeit a brief one, for Edwards to seize the the opportunity created by all this chaos. While the Clintons are very powerful, I don't think they could successfully destroy TWO opponents. So Edwards *could* emerge from the Obama rubble.

*Could* but not likely. Most likely, Obama will either collapse under the sleaze orgy or survive but be brutally weakened as he limps out of Denver; fresh meat for the GOP vultures.

TimKidd (4:27 pm),

That is such a dark portrait of the Clintons and the future that it has the ring of truth.

timkidd

But don't forget the law of unintended consequences. If Hillary does go on the attack against Obama, his chances depend a lot on how he responds. And by that I mean, will the "battle" overwhelm the message? They could both lose votes if it's tit-for-tat because voters don't like to see nasty campaigning, not between party candidates. And I think those votes would shift to Edwards or perhaps even a Republican, heaven forbid!

I just don't think it's Hillary's time. Maybe it never was for the presidency.

This is the reason I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton at any time. She's a dishonest, angry and greedy woman who would (not to my surprise at all) stoop to this level to win. Barack Obama obviously the better presidential candidate and will be a better President than Clinton and certainly a heck of a lot better than Bush.

Obscene amounts of money cannot buy you love, but it can buy Rupert Murdoch. Better off donating it to charity, rather than multimedia conglomerations. A candidate doesn't even get on a televised debate without a few hundred million or so. Money votes.

Anney,

You are certainly right about unintended consequences. The Clinton war against Obama *may* backfire enormously, destroying both of their reputations and relegating the DLC to obscurity. But it will largely depend on how Obama responds and handles the situation. I'm not a big fan of Obama by any means, but I do hope he and his handlers are well prepared for what's coming. And I do hope that Obama's supporters, most who are (understandably), quite anti-Hillary, realize that she is not going to go away quietly and let her grip on the party slip away without one hell of a fight.

Unless Hillary personally denounces and puts a stop to this talk now, she is toast. Hillary's only positives are three: that she is not Bush, that she is a woman that could break the ultimate glass ceiling, and that she would try to get something done on health care. While none of these three is insubstantial, they are deeply inadequate (two of these three apply to any Democrat), and her war votes and right-wing imperial rhetoric are the turnoffs. Now it appears the idea is being floated by Hillary's handlers that if Hillary can't have it, she will take down the Democrats chances altogether, in a Democratic version of the Republican defeat in 1964 or the Democratic defeat in 1972. However it isn't likely going to work even if this crackpot plan is carried out, because the Obama phenomenon is bigger than something that can be stopped by backroom Party Boss strategists.

I hope Obama and Edwards supporters refrain from attacks on each others' candidates, because in the end both camps need to work together to defeat the Republican nominee. 90%-plus of present Clinton supporters, even if a few backroom financiers threaten to take their marbles and go home, can be won over to supporting an Obama candidacy in the general election, with or without Hillary's active help.

The larger context is depressing: that it is politically impossible for any candidate, of either party, to challenge the imperial enterprise of America and not be instantly marginalized and excluded. As Noam Chomsky has said, no one EVER hears of "the American invasion of South Vietnam" because that statement of truth is literally not on the radar screen of possibility in our discourse. In the same way it is literally unthinkable for any presidential candidate to question the imperial enterprise and not be instantly considered "unAmerican"--that is the sorry state of our empirical situation. The debate allowed is only between those who aspire to use empire benevolently and those whose dark hearts beat for fascism and raw power for its own sake.

But with Obama there is a glimmer of hope. There is a wild card here, a hope that his Wilsonian benevolent-empire rhetoric may go the way of much of other candidates' campaign rhetoric on other issues, and be altered post-election toward a less-imperial direction; a hope that an Obama administration might grow and learn; a possibility that the symbolic power of Obama's rhetoric and popular mandate might outstrip campaign rhetoric, in the way that Martin Luther King's voice grew over time until his voice stood down all the king's horses and all the king's men (until shots rang out). The fundamental paradox or contradiction is that one MUST be an imperialist to be in the American Presidential game, which means every serious Presidential candidacy is, by definition, born in sin (so to speak). With Hillary, and with all of the Republican candidates with a chance of winning there is zero prospect of a change from the imperial enterprise. With Obama, there is a small chance for real change on this, despite his present Wilsonian-imperial rhetoric (which, make no mistake, is a prerequisite for viability in America's presently constructed system—the shamefully marginalized Kucinich [to whom I remain a committed supporter and voter] being an example of what happens when one violates this prime first directive for American presidential viability).

All the money that is pouring into Obama's campaign does not necessarily reflect Obama being bought and paid for. There is another possibility, mixed in among the mercenary-motivated contributions: half of America's elite knows Bush and Company are screwed up, and have varying degrees of social conscience, and may be putting money and backing into these hopes. Obama is becoming the hope for an alternative possibility. An Obama presidency (if not stolen in the election or preempted by other means [i.e. assassination]) would open up a small glimmer of hope of possibility that does not exist with any of the Republican frontrunners, or Hillary. Under the existing circumstances Obama is America's best shot, and I hope his existing lead in the polls continues to grow to a win in November by a landslide. Then—the hard work will begin of working to make real change in reality.

If Hillary's handlers go through with this, every single other Democratic figure—from Edwards and Richardson to Jackson and McGovern, and especially Gore in a big way—should instantly surround Hillary rhetorically and cut this one off right at the knees. Swift-boating the most exciting Democratic nominee since the Kennedys, one raising the hopes of young people in America, is about as reprehensible as it gets from the Hillary camp. All Democrats should ensure that if Hillary's handlers go this route, it is not allowed to stand.

I'm not surprised that she'd hire goons to dig up any dirt on anyone she feels might be in her way. Obviously she has been squandering the millions she had pocketed from donors of all stripes and tenets . If she goes through with her vindictive scheme against Obama it may end being the best thing to happen to him and get him elected . The woman is vendetta-prone .

The most crucial thing that I see, is John Edwards will fight to put an end to lobbying in DC. He knows how to win those types of fights.

The lobbying by the major corporations and big business have insured we have unjust wars, they profit from them. They have insured we do not have affordable medical care and prescription drugs. They have insured we don't have truly clean energy, they have insured we don't have dependable and affordable electric vehicles, etc. They have insured our Constitution is worthless now because we do not have a democracy.

Lobbying is the resaon we now have a Fascist form of government. That is why John Edwards being elected as OUR president is vital. He is the only candidate who will stop the lobbying. He saw first hand as a U>S> Senator what lobbying does and he didn't like it. None of us should like it, the corporations now rule us and as Roosevelt and Truman warned us, __ that's Fascism.

Hi COCO, you being good?

Tim

I agree that Hillary isn't likely to go away quietly. I just hope she doesn't decide to go ahead with a scorched earth policy. Reports a couple of days ago indicated she's taking over the running of the campaign herself and isn't going to put an advisor in place to determine the campaign direction and policy. And apparently she's bringing in new people tomorow, I suppose to do her bidding.

If she HAS taken over the campaign, we'll see who she really is in the coming months, how she plays politics to win. I suspect it's going to be vicious and she'll lose anyway.

Before she started attacking the frontrunners, I had some sense that they all had a chance at the nomination and it really depended on how well they were able to set forth their unique agendas. But something happened, and it SEEMS to be the Hillary attacks, too heated for the short length of the campaigns. Now I cannot imagine her winning either the Democratic nomination (at least honestly) or the presidency. It's almost as if there are two Hillarys, one is the smiling competent candidate with a chance that I first saw, and the other is a vicious politician who'll go to extreme lengths to win. The second one has gained ascendency in my consciousness, and this is BEFORE she's gotten underway with her new campaign direction, if indeed she intends to attack Obama.

Could there also be the possibility that if Hillary engages in the swift-boating tactic, she will turn off many voters? Remember in the Iowa caucus when Huckabee retracted his negative ad on Romney (he really did not retract it because it actually played on more than three television stations) a number of voters approached him, thanking him for (supposedly) retracting the ad. So, if Hillary did the same thing, might she lose voters, in which case the swift-boating plan could backfire? I agree with SCROLLER that Edwards and Obama should run clean, non-negative campaigns to isolate Hillary. Wow, once again we are seeing Bush-lite (Hillary) in disgusting action. My other question is this, why would Karl Rove tell other candidates how to beat Hillary if she is the most electable Republican?

What kind of politics is this? Does tarnishing the image of the opponent reflects one's "better image", or in turn tarnishes his/her own image???

In my culture (in India) there are two "stories".

1. Every day a temple elephant used to pass by a house in which there was a dog. Every day whenever the dog sees the elephant it used to bark at the elephant. That "act" of the dog never got any reaction/response from the elephant nor did the "act" of the dog make the elephant something else. It remained an elephant and it continued to go by the same route.

2. Whenever there was a full moon and the the moon light was so bright a dog used to bark at the moon. This "act" of the dog never detered the moon to continue to shine.

One does not profit from "tarnishing" somebody else's name. It only reveals more of the person who is indulged in this act of tarnishing. Don't we see a parallel in the US and European imperial tactics. That is, labelling their enemy either as a communist, or a dictator, or a terrorist, or a sponsor of terrorism, or a threat to the "democracy", "freedom" and "security" of the world.

People dont like her.
Its that simple.

She cant do anything about that.

It was a unlikely scenario having a former first lady running for president anyway.

But the voters in red states will still be the determining factor. Dont think many of them want to vote for a man with the middle name Hussein.

I will bet fox news will be referring to Barack Hussein Obama in their post nomination coverage of him.

Perhaps Osama will give a pre election video praising Obama.

Osama Endorses Obama

lots of mileage in that one.

Of course there is a big difference between attacks and telling the truth. It's a truth that Obama's stand, that he has always been against the war in Iraq is a myth and the press does not hit him on that very important issue. He has said he backed Bush 100% on his foreign policy in Iraq and the Mid East and Obama did vote yes to keep funding the war. What Bill Clinton is saying about that issue is 100% correct.

What I do like about it all, is a person of color is liked and can win in America. I just favor John Edwards over Obama or anyone else.

A 527 devoted to trashing Obama? That would unleash real war within the left of center folks upon whom the Democratic Party depends. But an unrelated comment: I read most of the comments by Common Dreams readers, and I was appalled! They sound like crazies, on the left instead of on the right. What kind of people read Common Dreams, which I consider a meritorious service to progressives. These semi-rational people don't sound like progressives; they sound like weird conspiracy-theory addicts. Poor Common Dreams staff; you must be disappointed reading so many slightly hysaterical comments!

jonno, wonder how many posts you just pull out of your ass

Here is a list of the problems that Hillary has:

http://www.sonic.net/~taryfast/Hillary.html

As you go through there, you can take note of all the dirty, big money that will be coming after Obama.

deepa

Two good stories! A barking dog can't "influence" or or be "involved with" an elephant OR the moon. Only another dog!

itsjustkarma: without this stinking and unjust military machine, that deserves to go up in smoke, NOBODY, I repeat, NOBODY would have to work, everybody would have free 'global' health care, wouldn't have to pay taxes at all. Because the true costs of the american 'oppressor machine' are tenfold then what the bills in the house reflect.

You can say that again. We can achieve current prosperity on 1/3 the labor, 1/10 the energy, and 1/500 the paper "capital". 90% of current labor is wasted. So we cut out the wasted 45 of current 50 hour work weeks and add back 10 to yield 15 hours/week in useful production. We cut out 100% of the current fossil fuel consumption, and add back 10% in renewable energy.

The extra free time we can use to educate ourselves, help the family maintain food and shelter, enjoy life, etc. Transportation, education and healthcare are completely paid by a very modest 10% tax on the 15 hour work weeks.

The Demoks of course prefer the establishment of mass enslavement and reverse robin hood wealth re-distribution to perpetuate this grotesque second gilded age of capitalist plunder, squander and destruction.

Kucinich supporter here, but I kinda know where that's going BUT I think I trust Barack more than I do Hillary.

Anyway, all three of them, Obama, Hillary and Edwards have taken big money from BIG corps, where's the fricken change?

If Hillary does this, it will be evil. Hillary, give it up and go give Bill a you know what before someone else does. Jasus, you're turning into a real Ann Coulter.

See you guys later.

Those who do not support or vote for John Edwards, either don't care, or don't realize, the mega corporations are in full control of our now Fascist government.

Im no Clinton fan but it seems to me that the Reichwing MSM and the Christianist(GOP)Regressives' plans are working out as well for them.

Is there a better way to insure a GOP victory in '08 than getting an unelectable(Obama) candidate on the Dem ticket?(other than stealing yet another election, that is).

Maybe it does not even matter who the Democrat nominee is. The election may be already fixed

I hope I'm wrong

scroller: All the money that is pouring into Obama's campaign does not necessarily reflect Obama being bought and paid for. There is another possibility

scroller, you are doing the audacity of hope dance nice and well but the over-arching truth is that successful social democracies thrive thanks only to the elites' fear of the rabble.

You are suggesting that one elite might overcome the entire establishment on behalf of a population of 300 million helpless, enslaved, obedient spectators. Ain't gonna happen. Instead, Obamarama will become an even more carefully choreographed establishment puppet, preserving the imperial machine for the next neocon rampage, 2012, 2016.

While I would hate to see the Democratic primary reduced to mudslinging, John Edwards and the sheeple of America would be the beneficiaries of a pissing contest between Hillary and Obama. It might actually force both of them to actually start voicing real ideas for change on the major issues instead of feel-good platitudes.

For your kids future, please vote - EDWARDS '08

Even though I REALLY like the idea of a "person of color" becoming the POTUS and I also REALLY like the idea of a "woman" becoming POTUS, the reality of the candidates makes me know that I must support the "white guy". GO EDWARDS GO!