Aldous Huxley, author of the classic novel, Brave New World, gives his readers a “warning” of what would come to pass if the government completely controlled our everyday lives. Published in 1932, Huxley wrote the book based on his prediction of how London, his hometown, might look in the year 2540, assuming the continuance of programs to end war, conflict, suffering, and antagonistic (aka: “free”) thought. Huxley painted a picture of what the world would look like if people were unable to speak their minds, or live how they want to, free from the confines of the multiple levels of government. Many people criticized and continue to criticize Huxley for his novel. Several seeds have been planted in the U.S., which have created alarming parallels to Huxley’s novel. The socialist and communist movements have been lurking in the shadows of America for many generations, but the movements have recently come to the forefront of the political platform. Some politicians are attempting to assign the government exclusive control of too many aspects of daily life. For example, in certain areas of Los Angeles, elected officials have created restrictions on where new fast food restaurants can and cannot establish themselves. Yes, you heard me right; the “man” is telling you that you can’t get a juicy hamburger and fries in South L.A., whether you like it or not. What’s worse is that state and national politicians are trying to rob you of your right to access fast and easy payday loans. Politicians want to eliminate payday loans in an attempt to win the votes of bigger corporations like banks, so they can take office and promote their self-interests. Stand up and be heard. Fight to free yourself from the government’s ever-increasing power over your daily life.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

Now, this thread is REALLY old, but I have a feeling that maybe Kem Patrick and rmax will see this, since they seem to have a built-in sonar for anything that could be construed as anti-Edwards.

I know you two really love your guy, Edwards, just like I really love my guy, Kucinich, and I admire your dedication and passion for him (and I envy you for having a candidate who actually scores and polls better than single digits). But I don't think I've ever seen from either one of you, throughout all these posts, a satisfactory explanation or rebuttal regarding the fact that Edwards and Clinton were overheard agreeing to eliminate "lesser" candidates such as Kucinich and Gravel from the debates.

You say Edwards has mended his ways, that he's a man of the people and a populist, etc., and I MIGHT be willing to give him that (although the $500,000 in hedge-fund consultation fees - separate and apart from the $16 million he invested in that hedge fund) still bothers me greatly as not indicative of a man of the people). But how are you okay with his attempt to exclude them from the debates? That's neither a "progressive" nor "democratic" thing to do. That's what ABC and NBC and Fox News and the Des Moines Register do. That shouldn't be what a progessive candidate does.

Please don't switch the subject by saying, "well, Dennis did this, and Dennis betrayed the progressives by doing that." Please just tell me how you're okay with Edwards doing what he did on that score.

Well said MAX.

peacecandidate,
Your mind is closed,there's no point arguing reasonably. Edwards has admitted (and aplogized for) his mistakes in the run-up to the invasion, he *has* pledged to overhall or scrap the Patriot Act (and was instrumental in adding a sunset clause to it), *and* has pledged to remove all combat troops in a year or sooner after being elected *and* pledged against permanent bases in Iraq. Kucinich has no chance of being elected, OBillary are certainly in favor of "protecting our national interests" (i.e. oil) in Iraq, so by default, Edwards is the only *viable* anti-war candidate *anyone* should be supporting. So, vote for Edwards (when/if you can) or sit on your butt and complain when President Frudy McRomneyBee is elected after people vote for a 3d party candidate or don't vote at all because the Dems aren't perfect. Edwards is the *real* hope for progressive change (ask DK who didn't want to throw his support to Edwards in Iowa for fear of hurting his already slim chances in NH). If a Republican is elected, g-d help us all. Think of all the nice conservative judges, the national parks that are raped, and additional men and women in the armed forces who will die if you don't support the Democratic nominee, and then explain here how you stuck to your "principles."

Please note that Cindy Sheehan is a scheduled speaker at the following event:

Saturday, January 12th ~ 11:00 AM to 4:00 PM
PRESENTE
A Vigil with Father Roy Bourgeois
To Close the School of the Americas
ABRIENDO LAS MEMORIA - HEALING THE WOUNDS

Los Angeles State Historic Park

1245 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles 90012

(Directions: Goldline Stops next to Park - Four blocks North of Union Station - Where Alameda Street meets Spring Street)

Speakers

Father Roy Bourgeois, Martin Sheen, Cindy Sheehan, Blase Bonpane, Eisha Mason, Fernando Suarez del Solar, Don White, Lucia Munoz, Dr. Jose Quiroga, Patricia Contreras, Josh Harris, Jim Lafferty, Hector Aristizabal, Maria Guardado, Mario Avila & Frankie Flores

CINDY -- you are an inspiration for us beyond measure.

Your courage and love for America
and our children's future
is as our renaissance's
_ L E G E N D _

Kem Patrick-

Edwards:
* co-Authored the Patriot Act- and he is not pledging to repeal it
* co-sponsored the Iraq War Bill- look up some of his speeches in 2002- he sounded just like Cheney.
* betrayed his followers after the 2004 election by rolling over and playing dead amidst all the reports of election fraud.
* took a $500,000 'consulting' job from a hedge fund that preys on poor people with predatory lending practices. That's fighting for the poor?

If you believe in Edwards, then you are just as delusional as Bush believers.

Since this thread has gone stale, I'm only commenting on the off-chance that Cindy takes a belated peek.

Cindy, I'm actually surprised that you didn't catch more crap from the lesser-evilists here. Your reaction to the Hillary tears was strong and unsentimental, and righteous anger always sends the nervous nellies a pearl-clutching and twittering about how uncalled-for such sentiments are.

As usual, the media prefers to hype the dumbest common denominator questions, e.g. "Were the tears real or faked?" "Is this occurrence somehow a profound comment on sexism and gender-based double standards in politics or political media coverage?"

I admit that I've deliberately avoided reading much about this overhyped event. However, IMO Hillary's fatal flaws are exposed regardless of whether the quasi-tears were fake or genuine. If faked, it expresses the worst kind of manipulative phoniness. But if real, which I'm willing to believe, it merely shows that Hillary is capable of self-pity.

The tears were about her. Sympathizers may choose to interpret them as evidence of some profound, altruistic angst or sensitivity towards the legacy of suffering and evil caused by the present criminal maladministration, i.e. she Cried because she Cared.

I resolve credibility issues in favor of a reliable source who personally witnessed Hillary dealing with a real-life encounter fraught with tragedy-- that would be you, Cindy.

Go Cindy! ♥

Corporate campaign contributions = BRIBES.

Why should I vote for someone who takes BRIBES?

Hang in there Cindy. Maybe you could ask some of the "candidates" why they seem to have forgotten that good people are being murdered every day while the 'election' is being played out.

It is possible that Hillary Clinton's near-tears were sincere, since the object that prompted her emotion was herself.

Cindy's hypothesis makes more sense if you change the focus from "emotion" to "empathy."

To all the Deibold theorists...please read this post!
There are absolutely ZERO exit polls that showed anything different than the final tally!

The polls that showed Obama up were taken over the weekend (the final one was conducted on Sunday). The exit polls alligned number for number with the final tally. This is completely different from what happened in Ohio in '04 where the computer numbers did not allign with the exit polls. Please folks, don't create issues where they don't exist. New Hampshire voters are famous for last minute decisions. In fact, almost 20% of voters made up their mind that day.

On a seperate note, the idea that Hilary knew that exact questions would be the perfect chance to show emotion...which would then elicit sympathy...which would then turn the election...holds zero water. Believe it or know she is a member of the human species, which means, she along with everyone else on this earth is capable of feeling overwhelmed at times.

Again, there is not ONE exit poll taken that shows numbers any different than the final results. The time to question results is when exit polls (where people report how they DID vote, not how they are PLANNING to vote) do not align with reported figures.

PEACE CANDIDATE. What do you have in reference, to proclaim John Edwards is a phony, or a liar, or unfit, or not qualified? Or are you just blathering crap and give nothng to debate? The answer to that question is self evident.

Jerr1208, That is known as a Mother whose son was murdered in an illegal war. A Mother whose only son is DEAD, and was greeted in kind by Hillary with apathy, so she damn well has every right to find her(Hillary) despicable as a human while she(Cindy)will cry always and not the tears of a crocadile the tears of a Mom who will never again hold her only son her arms again.
APOLOGIZE!

I believe that Hillary has been very poor on most of the issues regarding these subjects. But I don't believe that her action was calculated and I believe that she genuinely cares about America and, if Obama does not win the nomination, is our best hope for an eventual change of policy.

Cindy's right- the top three are all pro-war.

Not just Democrats, but most of America wants to end this war. So why do all of the 'top tier' candidates wholeheartedly support more war?

Logically, the top candidate ought to be the one saying, "I will end this war in 90 days."

--
ps- hey CommonDreams pals, how bout posting Kucinich has asked for a NH Recount- and maybe some of the 'rumors' that have been circulating on the net (- ;

Daniel David:
You had my respect UNTIL you turned your attention to bashing Cindy Sheehan. Cindy is a patriot - the people you defend are traitors. I've respectfully ignored your intellectually immature arguments for months, while others here at Common Dreams, have spent countless hopeless key strokes debating you.

That you are too thick to realize, that the democrats are the left wing, to the republican right wing, of the same vulture that picks at the dying carcass of our country, is beyond me.

Call yourself a liberal - don't insult me. And the questionable effort you mention, appears to be your effort at convincing everyone, that repeating the same mistake will produce a different outcome.

I've stayed out of the Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards vs. Kucinich nausea that is taking place on this site. I suggest you take your poisoned mouse and scroll over there and join your friends.

Since you speak of respect, you may regain mine, and perhaps that of yourself, if you do one of the following: Apologize to Ms. Sheehan or sacrifice your blood for the nation. However, as the party you apparently represent, has dis-respected it's supporters so many times before, I don't expect that you will behave any differently.

Ramsay

Daniel David, sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

Cindy is right. Hillary Clinton and those of her democratic ilk are professional fakers, actors, and cons who will say or do anything to gain office, just like their Republican counterparts. There is no oppositional party in this country to represent the people's interests. Have you forgotten? We elected democrats promising change in 2006. What did we get? Just as I suspected we would, disappointment--more of the same lies, cover-ups, propaganda, and benefits to King Bush and his base, the elite "have mores," at the expense of the rest of us, the middle American "have nots."

To suggest that liberals should not dissent, criticize, or hold democratic representatives and presidential hopefuls accountable for their lackluster, hypocritical behavior, and outright dereliction of their oath to defend the Constitution is not only base and servile, but "morally treasonable." We have a right to demand honor and integrity from our representatives. Unfortunately folks like Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are few and far between. Instead, we end up with the 'empty barrels,' folks who make a lot of noise but are devoid of content, character, or conscience.

If you think electing an elite democrat at this point is going to make any difference in our plutocratic, kleptocratic oligarchy, you obviously suffer historic amnesia and believe the US is still a secular, egalitarian, democratic republic with elected representatives who honor the rule of law, the ethics of process, and individual civil liberties. You probably still think the press is a watch dog for the public and that the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Justice Department can be trusted to hold the executive branch accountable. I bet you even think your vote counts! I won't even mention the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

Remember the old adage, "you can call a duck a dog, but it's still gonna quack." Well, one can call a republican a democrat, but he or she is still gonna pander to the elite right and place profit over people.

I hear a lot of quacking coming from a lot of dogs....errr democrats these days, but they collect their pay-offs...errr campaign contributions from the same corporate elites that finance the current republican criminal cabal. The system has been completely corrupted. Most democrats ARE republicans. The future is bleak.

There is no white knight that's coming to save us from the corporate and banking oligarchy. Not a Joan of Arc, not an MLK, JFK or FDR. We the People can only save ourselves direct democratically.

Is there a website where We the People can propose laws and vote on them?

Are we supposed to believe yet again that several pre- and exit polls were so far off only in this race? Kudos to Green Pat & greenerrthanthou for picking up on the discrepancies coming from the Diebold count districts and not so much the hand counted districts.

Check it out for yourselves. Ron Paul's website has the raw data and the Brad Blog has a lot more in depth follow up and analysis.

If we are to believe the MSM, who doesn't bother to fact check by asking for a sampling of hand recounts in the most anomalous districts, then the reason the Clinton Obama polling numbers didn't match up is ... because New Hampshire democratic voters are lying menopausal racists. And of course, the Iowa Democrats are not.

Give me a break!

It is even possible that that is true. (I doubt it) It is even possible that if the vote was hacked or programmed to skim the numbers, that Hillary had nothing to do with it. There are many who believe the Republicans would benefit by a Hillary nomination as a win-win. Either she loses because of the 'I will never vote for a Clinton' constituency or it's O.K. if she wins, since she is Republican-lite anyhow.

All Democratic candidates, even and ESPECIALLY Hillary should demand a bi-partisan hand recount in the most anomalous districts. Our Democracy depends on it.

Imbecile voters like Daniel David are the reason we're still in Iraq and won't leave for another 50 years. They think Democrats are antiwar and pro-working class. For how long can these idiots be fooled? Forever, at least from what one reads on asinine sites like Democratic Underground and even some posters here on CD.

It's okay to bash Hitlery as long as your praise Obomber. How moronic can you get....

As for Hitlery's tears, I don't think they were fake, they were very real and Cindy nailed it. Those were real tears of desperation shed by someone realizing her dreams of absolute power were about to be shattered. Hitlery is Bush with tits. Obomber is Bush with a smile.

Cindy, you are desperately needed on the political stage.
Here is the slogan : Cindy for congress to clean up the mess. Good Luck

Those New Hampshire voters showed their "independence". They proved to be a bunch of status quo monkeys. God Bless you Cindy, you have the guts to call a spade a spade.

If you want to gloss over the facts of the "two party duopoly", and just want to put any democrat in the white house, then you won't like this article.

Let us all pretend that the quick fix democrat will solve the problem. When it does not solve the problem then what will you "liberals" do next.

We are faced with fundamental problems that encompass both the economic and political systems. You can't invent a quick fix. We need to build a new political movement in this country, one that represents working class interests. This will take years and hard work. I really wish a democrat could solve these problems but I don't see and facts to back that up.

Cindy's campaign to oust Pelosi, could be the genesis of this new political movement, and for this reason must be supported.

As far as Daniel David is concerned, any Democrat is worth voting for no matter what kind of a-hole s/he is, since it's our job to elect them and then convince them to change their ways. It doesn't matter if we don't have enough money to make that happen, we're just supposed to scream at them. Oops, we've already tried that, didn't work. Must also be our fault.

Regarding Hillary's tears, I hear even Hitler loved his dog and children (as long as they weren't Jewish).

kathyodat

Here is some info on the New Hampshire vote count
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

Daniel David That is the lamest thing you've said yet- that voting machine hacking can be fought by making them steal even more votes so that people would notice.

How about 8,000,000? Is that enough? That is the number of votes switched in 2004. Did any Democrats but John Conyers and Stepanie Tubb Jone notice? The Greens and the Libertarians paid for the Ohio recount, not the Democrats.
http://www.unknownnews.org/041207corn-vs-palast.html

Did anyone fight back when the Supreme Court voted to put Bush in office? We all knew that Gore won that election, but the Democrats took the anger that people felt at the Supreme court and Jeb Bush, and turned it onto to Ralph Nader, for some bizarre reason that only they know. I would guess that they need to keep their people down. So that would be another reason not to go along with the Democratic program.

"Thumbs up" for comment by "figmentzenguitar"

O.K. Cindy! Are you offering up some proposal(s) to make a CHANGE or are you just becoming another pundit? Talk is cheap! Your courageous leadership at this critical point in history is greatly needed!

Is your "PEACE SUMMIT" taking place January 15th as mentioned previously? What is the agenda? Hopefully it will include a new political party, a PEOPLE'S PEACE PARTY?

After rightly leaving the Democratic Party, what next?
Is a personal career path of opposing and probably defeating Nancy Pelosi enough? Don't we need to involve the millions of people now in opposition to the status quo in a new direction?

The candidates for office are discussing EVERYTHING except the ISSUESthat matter to the vast majority of people.

Global Warming...Wars and Militiarism...the economy in collapse...Health care for all (not for corporate profit)... Public education under attack...Immmigration policy that deals with the causes of immigration and not further exploit the poverty (imposed by U.S. corportions on Meico) of Mexican people.....Civil liberties, prisons and the police state are NEVER discussed.....totalitarian control of mass media and elections, etc. What PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE do you have?

Nothing is discussed by Republican and Democratic Parties because they are all against change, for the maintenance of the status quo.... which is the agenda of the corporate contolled government.

The issues are not discussed individually or collectively because they are all fundamentally tied to the maintenance of the corporatist capitalist system. Band-aid reforms will only ameliorate conditions that are now intolerable for millions.

War will not end unless the huge profits are taken out of war for the oil companies and the military-industrial complex.
The military budgets must be drasticallyu cut, 700 plus foreign bases closed down, etc.

The privatization of the federal government must end. Corporatism is the merger of state power and corporate power. Corporatism is another term for fascism.

Read daily the World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org
for mental liberation from corporatist mass media indoctrination.

Belief in the democratic party? Somebody please explain. Show some evidence, any evidence. Make me a believer.

Thank you Cindy. The truth hurts. Believing sorry-ass delusions hurts even worse in the long run.

Time to grow up and face the brutal truths.

Thank you Cindy for your insights.

I do agree the top tier of the Dems are not strong enough in their opposition to the war. I think that is our job to get them to the place we want them to be. Obama and Edwards are not Dennis K but they both have more understanding than Hillary about the what the people want.

We have to step into our power and make sure this war is brought to an end. Our elected officials either lack courage or do not have the power of the people. Having what seems more like a one party systems is a challenge also.

Please don't give up and get too jaded. All of us need to keep our minds and our hearts open or we will become lost like Cheney and Bush.

Joseph Bernard, Ph.D.
www.peace-together.com
www.ExploreLifeBlog.com

Cindy,

Thanks so much for the information and the insight. I had been on the fence regarding whether Hillary's performance was scripted or spontaneous but you have convinced me it was the former. I would add that it was unnerving that the television corporate media refused to provide the proper context by informing the viewers that Clinton was clumsily trying to parrot the Edwards' line from Saturday night about how his fight was "personal" to him.

Keep it up and please keep us updated about your campaign to unseat Pelosi!

Daniel David wrote: "Cindy Sheehan deserves our respect UNTIL she turns her attention to bashing all of the top tier Democratic candidates who have any possibility of being elected instead of just some more Republican conservatives."

I thought this was satire until I read the rest of his post.

Apparently Cindy deserves our respect as long as she only bashes pro-war Republicans. Democrats who won't commit to ending the war a.s.a.p. are supposed to be sacrosanct.

Pro-war Rethuglicans BAD. Pro-War Democrats GOOD.

Got it.

With Hillary (Bush Lite) it is more of the same. As all of you know she voted for the spying er... wiretapping. Well, apparently the phone companies are preventing the FBI from wiretapping because the FBI has not paid any phone bills on time! LOL!!!

Lest we forget, Hillary represents "..stay the course.." in her own words, just as Pelosi represents "... off the table."

In a side by side political comparison between Hillary Clinton and Ronald Reagan, which one would be more Republican?

Cindy, I can't wait to vote for you.

Hi BLURP, A lot of Kucinich supporters were very upset with him for endorsing Obama in Iowa. __ It stunk.

It was Diebold. The republicans control the vote counting and they don't want John Edwards. All of Congress does not want John Edwards. He will kill their golden goose.

Senator Kerry just endorsed Obama, he does not want to see John Edwards end lobbying. That golden goose is lobbying, and it is cooking US. It is cooking us because it is lobbying that insures we have giant corporations that control our government, who want war, who want to insure we do not have decent health care, who do not want us to have clean energy, who do not want us to have decent fees for college, they DO want to see our jobs outsourced to China, because they profit from it.

It is big business, and mega corporations, by use of lobbying, who insure we are a Fascist state. John Edwards is the ONLY candidate who will fight lobbying and he has proven he can win such fights. Unless John Edwards is elected, nothng in Washington DC politics will change. ~Nothing~. So don't expect anything to change, because the Repugs count the votes. If they want Hillary or Obama to win the primary, that is how it will be.

Dielbold just scuttled Obama and has been killing Kucinich all along.

1% for Kucinich, seems kind of low, every where I look people believe he's the real aganet of change. That's got to be worth more than 1%.

Don't underestimate the length they can go to to fix the election.

re 1:06pm

cindy sheehan deserves the respect of all true liberals---ESPECIALLY when she tells the unpleasant truth about the sorry bunch of hacks served up to us by the corporate duopoly. if it makes faux liberals and dlc trolls squirm, so much the better.

those who think the Ds can be reformed from inside are urged to consider the results of previous efforts by jesse jackson and larry agran. then note how dennis kucinich, whose ideas are as close to progressive as we're likely to see from either major party, has been given the bum's rush both by the media AND his supposed allies---remember how clinton and edwards were caught by an open mic conspiring to narrow the field to "serious" candidates such as themselves?

Rebel Farmer, i feel your pain. FWIW, i'm going to vote kucinich in the primary, and i'm going to write him in in november. anybody who doesn't like it can kiss my nader 2000 bumpersticker.

don't be bought, don't be bullied, and don't get fooled again.

To Jim Glover,

I'm just as concerned about Diebold shenanigans as you and many others are. And that is why Democrats everywhere may need at least 60% to eke out a win of even 51%. There is an upper "limit" to the amount of vote-count tweaking that can be done without detection by citizens. We need Dems to landslide right over the top of that margin.

I'm sorry to see your cynicism (and sexism), Cindy. When you're exhausted on the campaign trail (and I'd like to see you run against Nancy Pelosi), I hope you'll be able to keep your emotions in check. We certainly can't have women crying, can we? There's no crying in baseball or politics, apparently.

Here's an article about the woman who asked the question. It doesn't sound to me like she was working with Hillary's staff.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080110/NEWS/801100415/-1/NEWS09&sfad=1

I am afraid Daniel David is right - our task is to turn the Dems as far left as possible in all upcoming elections - we have no viable, practical alternative. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Caucus (Rahm Emmanuel) and other turncoats have to be driven from positions of power; each of us must recruit like-minded folks to pressure our reps; we must educate our children and grandchildren for political change; and we must be willing to admit that this is going to be a long, long struggle. The Repubs have been planning their debacle for decades, and of course their task was much easier than ours will be - we simply want people to pursue justice and liberty and equality - the Repubs have always relied upon selfishness, inequality, prejudice, class distinctions, and hypocrisy.

Could be those Diebold Tabulating machines too... that is what counts most of the votes in all elections now.

I heard even write in votes get run through the tabulators.

If we get screwed again, Maybe even Daniel David will want to start a new Movement.

We'll See,

The Old Voting Machine

Yes Cindy,
Even the media is confused about Hillary's tears.

If the polls were over when she cried, They can't figure out how the Exit Polls missed the change.

The only explanation given so far by the media is that the exit pollsters were Young Folks and or the voters were lying when they left because they don't like being asked who they voted for.

When a women cries, the world listens... that is a good thing too.

This is gonna be a wild election! and I do hope Hillary's voice has changed... Four Years of her screeching and cackling will be slow waterboarding for me.

The suprising 'victory' of Clinton (when Obama was ahead in the polls) was registered on the Diebold 1.94 optical scanners. These machines are controled by a private contractor and there is no way for verification. Could it be possible that there was some fraud? Like in Ohio and Florida for Bush? Could big money rig an election? Warning---the same private firm is in charge of the upcoming elections in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont.

Thanks Cindy! As usual......Clinton is a warmonger. If she is nominated and elected, the Bush dynasty will only continue. It would not be a win for the Dems. It would be a win for the fascists and corporations.

I'd like a little guidence here. I TOTALLY support Kucinich. I fear however that without IRV that my primary vote will be like spitting in the wind. Of the top three Dimwit candidates, I would prefer that Edwards be put on the ticket. So what do I do with my vote? It's quite a dilemma.

Hillary "Crocodile Tears" Clinton. "Crocodile Clinton;" it suits her!

Cindy Sheehan deserves our respect UNTIL she turns her attention to bashing all of the top tier Democratic candidates who have any possibility of being elected instead of just some more Republican conservatives.

An article against Hillary might be useful if it makes a good argument for Obama or Edwards instead. Knocking all of them is no longer helpful at all. That "break the two-party duopoly" argument was valid about two years ago for 2008. Or maybe two years from now for 2012. We are already in the election year. No liberal third party is here in place to win. So us liberals now need to win the election we have, not some other one we "dream" about. And we need to do so, apparently, OVER the comments or objections of Cindy Sheehan who seems to be insisting on putting her efforts in a questionable place.

Ralph Wiggum is bloodless but not a killer. He gets my vote.

Signs of breaking the corporatocracy's hold on American politics would be 1) A progressive/socialist news channel on cable TV; (Keith Olbermann? Please, he's got more in common with Jerry Springer than anyone on the left. And Springer as a left spokesman? Please, Air America, what were you thinking?); 2)Progressive/socialist major daily newspapers in major cities; 3) Have the election coverage on a free and open internet; these for starters.

Until the Left has a functioning political organization, we'll be left out of the discussion. We're good at bitching, we're good at pointing out what's wrong, we're not good at organizing politically, yet. I think it's because we've got better things to do, and it's true -- but there's a problem with that -- if you don't go to the table, you don't get fed or have any say about what's for dinner. It seems clear that those who WANT power and control are the ones who are IN control -- and as Lao Tzu said over 2000 years ago, those who wish to rule are unfit. It's a quandary.

Perhaps we should look to post-1968 France or Chavez in Venezuela for examples. Also, as "soft-Fascism" - a useful term - becomes more the norm in the U.S., political oppression, debt slavery, wage slavery, and similar dysfunctions will start to wake people up who simply can't be bothered right now. How many people do you know whose eyes glaze over when you bring up political discourse? Most people, understandably, are nauseated by it. It's a reasonable and appropriate response. Unfortunately, it doesn't change anything.

One last thing -- "liberal" is not really Left. "Liberal" is the Left's appeasement of capitalism. That's how far out of the mainstream discussion the Left is. It's about how far out Rush Limbaugh-types were in the '60s -- back in the days of Liberal Republicans -- before MLK and RFK were murdered.

All of the viable candidates are bloodless killers. Some prefer more negotiating and less slaughter as a tactic to achieving the goals of the empire. But achieve them they will. There can be no negotiating with them. A shadow government of the people must cast them back into the darkness they slithered out of and provide no cushioning for when they crash.

Cindy- I have a great deal of respect and admiration for you. I greatly dislike Hillary too! I can see through the "crocodiles tears" easily. She's cold and calculating. The O-Billarys are pro-status-quo-establishment candidates both. Can you write about a possible plan for what to do? I hate our choices and I'm starting to feel hopeless.

ctrl-z January 10th, 2008 2:56 pm
Pro-war Rethuglicans BAD. Pro-War Democrats GOOD.

Thanks for the clarification.

I cannot see what good it does to trash all three of the top running Democrat candidates. Perhaps we would prefer Kucinich or some other but we have what we have and any of them will beat what we put up with the last two terms. Edwards voted for the war along with most everyone else, but he admits his mistake and should be credited for that. He is the best chance to make a difference and we had better all get behind him and stop the crabbing about all three of them which accomplishes nothing. While the Dems are throwing dirt at each other, the Repubs are planning strategy and they are very good at that.

Kernel January 11th, 2008 12:43 am

Even if I changed my mind and voted for a candidate (Edwards) that voted for war the problem is Edwards may not make it to Nov. Then what? Vote for O-Billy?

"Edwards... is the best chance... we had better all get behind him"

just like Kerry and the Anybody But Bush crowd in 2004. If you get behind a phony... well look where it got us.

Fool me once...

KIVALS, that's correct. As soon as I first saw that TV spot of Clinton sayng how PERSONAL it was, I knew for certain she was just repeating John Edwards words. It was almost word for word what he'd said at one time during their debate. When he was giving that brief talk, her eyes widened and she started to take notes. Then just as he was finishing a very decent short speech, Obama rudely interuppted him and about killed it.