I no longer know what to think. But I'm really happy that Clinton(s) was soundly defeated.

I can't vote in the primaries until May. I think I'm just going to sit back now for a while and see what happens in the real world between now and then, and see how these candidates respond to it. With any luck the stock market will crash and the corpracrats will be scrambling. Maybe the dick will start another war. Or maybe a natural disaster somewhere. We do, in fact, live in interesting times. Scarey as hell, but interesting.

In the meantime, join the peoples' revolution. STOP being a consumer and become a citizen. Don't feed the monster! Learn to live with less and be prepared for the worst. Oh, and stay awake!

Yeah ... im a cynic. Obama (and a lot of us) need to savor this moment cause it may not last too long. Watch the Clinton Machine come right back and crush all 'hope' !

When will people realize Edwards is the true candidate of hope? It is frustrating people in his own state can't grasp the importance of an anti-corporate agenda...but on a lighter note it is nice to see the Clinton dynasty take a thrashing...it would be so much nicer though if I had a vague idea of what Obama means by "change"..

Hi,

Whoever is the Democratic nominee, and whoever is the next President - WE NEED TO BE A MOVEMENT!

Lyndon Johnson did not sign the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act because he was a great leader - he signed them because the power structure of the US was threatened.

Richard Nixon did not sign the National Environmental Policy Act because he was a great leader - he signed it because the power structure of the US was threatened.

And Bill Clinton did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good, because there was no movement threatening the power structure of the US during his presidency.

Whoever is President, we need to threaten the power structure of the US. Not because we have a visionary candidate, not because we vote for or against anyone, but because we are acting and mobilizing and creating our own reality. Candidates and Presidents will only follow us if we lead.

Blogging is not useless, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. We all need to be organizing in our communities, building a popular movement that truly threatens corporate power and the war machine.

So i ask myself - what do i feed with my daily activities? What does my work, and my money, and my life build? Who am i working with, and what are we building? Words are important, but if my actions feed the monster, my words cannot compensate.

Are we building a movement? What are we building?

Just Great.

My choice is Four more years of B-Iraq Obombing/Clinton Clutsterbombs or
Four more years of being Cained to death by Repukes and Neocon nutcases.

Screw it.

I'm going to vote for the spoiler. Oh Ralphie?

Well since I can't vote for 'Give 'em hell!' Dennis & Edwards can't even win his home state I'm considering voting for the Senator from Illinois...I did smile at his line in the recent debate "Hillary, I was a community activist on the streets of Chicago when you were a corporate lawyer on the board of WallMart"...Folks, I know he's got his faults(increase the military?!)but Clinton IS the 'Status Quo'& very well could lose to the Repubs...Would love to see an Obama/Edwards or Obama/Kucinich(I'M a dreamer) but an Obama/Richardson would be unbeatable...progressives would have a heck of a better shot of being heard with Obama than Clinton or Repubs....okay, my 5 cents....btw, EVERY dollar you spend is your daily political statement....p.s. I think progressives should keep an open mind on Obama as he'll be getting hammered plenty by the Clintons...

Anyone think that maybe the negative ads pushed possible CLinton voters towards Obama

"The crowd chanted "Race doesn't matter". But race did play a part. Obama took 78% of the African-American vote but did poorly among white voters, except for those below the age of 24."

"Obama is not the first African-American candidate to do well in South Carolina. Jesse Jackson secured an equally convincing victory in the 1988 Democratic primary, taking 54% to Al Gore's 19%, but failed to win the nomination."

And Mitt Romney won over 95% of the Mormon vote in Nevada.

With Kucinich gone, and Edwards fading fast, the only thing left is a vote against the Republicans. Who will beat the Republican? If the above racial and sectarian voting pattern holds, Obama would lose the General Election in a landslide defeat. And for all his unity talk, he did shove Kucinich and Edwards aside. Like all other politicians, his unity talk is like Bush 'bipartisanship'... if you go along with him we're unified and bipartisan.

Obama's typical airy spiel is a blank slate. His call for 'working together with the Republicans' is the typical Lieberman line of Democratic capitulation. He lost me when he supported Lieberman running in Connecticut under the banner of the "Conn. for Lieberman (Likud)Party", over the real Democrat. That's some kind of unity there. That is the real Obama. And having Zbig Brezinsky as his advisor doesn't say progressive.

It certainly is not a sure thing Clinton would win in the General Election either, but she has a better shot at it, as, again if the pattern holds, more white women vote. And, sorry, Middle America will not vote for a guy with a Muslim name at this time. Can't see it.

In the end, all the talk has been cancelled out by all the other talk, and people vote their feelings about, and sense of connection with, the candidate him- or herself. An Obama would not do well, and would be divisive.

So, because of the vanity and ego and money of two corporate politicians (typical Democratic Pary move- find a way to lose in a sure-win situatiion), unbelievably, this nation can probably prepare for eight more years of a Repugnant, Bushite President!

On January 22, Amy Goodman interviewed the legendary activist, grace Lee Boggs. Boggs, 92, marched with Dr. King and with Malcolm X, and she spoke excitedly about the Barack Obama phenomenon. Reminding us all of the perils of top-down leadership, especially in the U.S.A., where charismatic, principled leaders are so often gunned down, never to see the promised land, as Dr. King predicted in his own case. One need only think of the fates of JFK to RFK to MLK, Jr., Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and many others who gave their lives for the cause. Don't forget that Dr. King gave his "Beyond Vietnam" speech, in which he connected materialism, racism, and militarization. For activists, it may even be a more powerful speech than his "I have a dream" speech.

This is why Grace Lee Boggs expressed excitement about the candidacy of Barack Obama, who is bringing thousands, if not millions of new voter, of young, energized, optimistic youth, tired of the same old party hacks and quacks. Grass roots organizing is much harder to snuff than individual leaders of movements. While she admitted that the policies articulated by Dennis Kucinich are much closer to the policies she favors, she still maintained that this surprising, multiracial, energetic campaign was promising, even surprising.

Given that none of the front-runners have distinct or exemplary policies, nor do any of them have progressive voting records, perhaps we should listen to this wise activist and worry about the policies down the road. After all, the CEO of our country can do nothing without consulting the corporations, the congress, and the realm of the possible.

For all of these reasons, I am ready to join this grass roots phenomenon, preferring the audacity of hope over Hope, Arkansas!

1. Obama didn't do poorly among Whites. He took about 25 percent of White the vote and actually beat Clinton among White men. He could have done better, but this is great news. Somewhere else, maybe at Huffington Post, I read that 73 percent of White voters said he is "electable". Sorry, you'll have to search for that.

2. In contrast, Jesse Jackson took less than 10 percent of the White vote his year (again, the stat is posted elsewhere). Looking at this number, it's very clear that Obama CONVINCINGLY confirmed his appeal across racial lines.

3. Sadly, this article seems to reinforce the talking points coming from the Clinton camp, including the ill-advised (and wrong-headed) comparison to Jesse Jackson. I think the Clintons are injecting racial categories into the discussion at every opportunity. Let's stop biting the bait and expose this cynical tactic.

FVHorn -

Do you read your screed? This is a poison eating from within. How can Democrats ever stand up for anything meaningful when compromised by such cynicism?

I don't plan to vote for either Obama or Clinton, either in the primaries or in the general election, although it would be fun to watch this race result in a brokered convention. As the Clintons' campaign has been the far more disgusting, I was glad the Democrats of South Carolina put them in their place. I only wished Edwards had outpolled them too.

Man, Pepsi really showed Coke who's boss!

Wanted to point people back to webwalk's comments up top...

The reality is that as people living here in the belly of the beast the change that we need to make isn't going to come through electoral politics. We can build movements that force the political classes to be more accountable to the majority of Americans and the people of the world. But even that falls short.

There is a deep economic crisis right now and capital, the political class, and corporate power--the world over--is currently creating their fix. We have an opportunity to deligitimize global market-based existence and reinvent our world here in the United States. Come one--come all--get out of the shadows and lets place some real demands on the system as we build a new one.

Don't get distracted by the political class--it is not ours and it is not the place where the most change can happen from. Are we assuming the power that we already have? Take the power you have and organize. Sure, Bush has shown us all that it matters who is President. However, in the grand scheme of things the most radical politcal spectrum we are faced with in our 2 party oligarchy is a neocon neo-imperialism or liberal multilateral neoliberalism. Both are extremely violent and do precious little to challenge the world's deeply entrenched 20/80 economy where 20% of the world's population consume 80% of the world's resources. None of these elites are willing to significantly challenge these hisorically rooted resource flows that are underpinnned by military, economic and political coercion and force as well as a consumer culture that has been deeply enmeshed into thhe imaginaries of the us electorate.

The change we need is far greater than these candidates can offer. They conduct research to determine who they should be and how to position themselves rather than campaigning on any coherent set of values that will take us away from a society of extreme patterns and inter-relationships of wealth and poverty.

Organize! The politicians will not bring about the change we need.

http://www.leftturn.org

!Viva La Revolucion!

justpassingthrough: FVHorn was just stating a sad fact that exists in our country. But, I guess you have a hard time accepting the reality of the situation. Even though I will vote for Obama in the general election (I have no problems there) if he is the Democratic candidate. Because I will under no circumstances vote Republican as long as I am a lucid functioning person. I won't vote for a third party candidate because that will put another Repuke in the White House and I refuse to do that. The sad fact remains that Obama nor Clinton either one can win a general election. The guy commenting in front of me militantliberal is walking proof they can't win. And for the obvious reasons you should have already figured out if you were remotely savvy about this country. Hillary has a severe image problem and race does make a difference to a lot of people. So I don't see his remarks as being unduly negative. As far as I can see Edwards is the only one who might have a chance of winning. So, this whole election is depressing. I see another 4 to 8 years of the same kind of mess looming in this countries future. Because I don't have a gram of faith left in the intelligence of the American people. Not after who they put back in office in 2004!

I have this idea, please feel free to flame me for suggesting it.

The neo-cons, whoever they are, seem to have a subtle hand in the Democratic camp. They participate in ways that make Clinton's voice a little louder. They want to help drown out the other voices, and they also would like to have a say in who their leader would be in the unfortunate event that the enemy team somehow captures the flag.

My despicable idea? Put aside your all-or-nothing aspirations, and look into Dr. R. Paul. Visit his website. Read some stuff about him. Pick him in some RightWing polls. While no-one can probably set up the game so that he'd be the king if the enemy team captures the flag, it would really really help to keep his talking points on the table. Really. Losing Dennis was a sad blow to the whole system. Losing Ron would be another giant step in the same, wrong direction, albeit a step by the other foot.

I strongly recommend dis-aligning yourself from the phony right/left fight-amongst-yourselves brand allegiance politics and stand up for the truth.

Our insidiously defective process brings out this four year lie and just as regularly, the masses engage in a semi-religious ritual, eventually a new employee brings brand X to the executive branch, to represent the status quo.
The lie, of course, is that we have a popular vote. This would be way too dangerous. F-16s before health insurance, for example.

FVHorn wrote: "Obama's typical airy spiel is a blank slate. His call for 'working together with the Republicans' is the typical Lieberman line of Democratic capitulation. He lost me when he supported Lieberman running in Connecticut under the banner of the "Conn. for Lieberman (Likud)Party", over the real Democrat. That's some kind of unity there. That is the real Obama. And having Zbig Brezinsky as his advisor doesn't say progressive."

You're way off base here, FVHorn. Obama intially supported Lieberman, but switched to Ned Lamont when he won the Dem nomination. The Washington Post had the AP report:

Lamont Gets Help From Obama

By ANDREW MIGA
The Associated Press
Thursday, October 26, 2006; 9:48 PM

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, a vocal defender of Sen. Joe Lieberman earlier this year, is urging Connecticut voters to rally behind his rival, Ned Lamont.
-- Read the rest here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601187.html

And, BTW, Lamont is now supporting Obama for president.

With Kucinich out and Edwards very nearly out, we have two viable choices: Hillary and Obama, unless someone can come up with a perfect, flawless candidate who has a chance of beating the GOP in November.

Hillary is the DLC-approved candidate and she's taken campaign money from corporations and even Rupert Murdoch. Obama has not; he's accepted no PAC or corporate money.

Obama inspires young people and has fewer negatives than Hillary, so he is, in fact, more 'electable.' I've heard Republicans and independents say they could vote for Obama, but never for Hillary. That may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

While even Hillary would be better than any of the GOP's top candidates, we already know she is going to cater to the corporate power elite, as did hubby Bill, and likely pass legislation that won't help the average American, such as NAFTA and CAFTA.

Obama, like any politician who wants to get things done, has compromised in the past, but he has also achieved some things; the Illinois legislature now has ethics laws thanks to him, and he has been generally progressive thoroughout his life, albeit he's more careful since he's been a US Senator. (Keep in mind even FDR was a politician, and he had to compromise to accomplish his goals.)

So, here are our choices: Hillary and the status quo; Obama and a hope of real change; or another Republican in the White House.

You choose.

I guess I am the only one here who is glad.

Big_Money...

Ron Paul?

Whether you want to talk left-right he IS a right-wing libertarian not just because this is a lable but because his thinking and actions are underpinned by a certain set of values, ideals, philosophy and experience that he will put into coherent action.

Explore his human values in terms of:
-race
-immigration
-public sector social programs

And tell me again why I should vote for him.

There is a difference between right and left wing libertarians my friend--one tends towards fascism and the other towards liberation. There is a history to this and one that cannot be ignored whether you want to talk left or right just look at the values each represents and you'll see that Ron Paul would find a good following amongst right-wing paramilitary organizations in our society, which we think of as pure nonsense but has been played out and is being played out in real places on our planet today. See for example Colombia.

Hi, directdemocracy,

I'm actually not suggesting you vote for him, I realize his solutions to the problems at hand are not the best possible solutions.

I'm suggesting you help him. Help his voice appear amongst the jingoistic claptrap. Help him try to show the so-called "right" that they are being robbed blind, just like everyone else. Should he somehow magically be chosen to lead his party, which won't happen, his party will be crippled because those who call the shots won't allow him to prevail, and then your vote for whatever crook is leading your party will be more likely to succeed.

I can't tell you why you should vote for him. But everyone would be better off with you voting against him than voting against any of the other sound-bite-machines they're gonna put forth.

Jim Glover, I'm glad too. Hillary gives me the heebie-jeebies and I'm glad that she lost. And I like Obama more than most people here do, I think. At least he didn't join in on Edwards' and Hillary's attempts to pull an NBC on Kucinich before NBC even thought of it. To me, those two just canceled themselves out, right then and there. From that point on, everything either candidate said was just garbage, as far as I'm concerned. Which leaves Obama, who may not be all that bad. He was a community activist on the streets of Chicago, and how many law school grads and Presidential candidates can say that?

Of course Kucinich's ideas were and are the best, but just look at what happens to you in this country when you tell it like it is.

I have to somewhat agree with FVhorn. It became obvious to me when Newt Gingrich spoke so highly of both Clinton and Obama on Meet the Press nearly a year ago. And now we've seen MSM effectively cull out the real progressives from the Democratic field with its Clinton/Obama "frenzy" over the last six to eight weeks.
The Right is banking that a Woman or a Black can not win in America. As scary as that sounds, it's a very distinct possibility.
Y'all better get ready for another 8 years of Republican rule.
God help us...
I hope I'm wrong.

Well, if Oabama wins, we all get to HOPE that's it not just another four years of moving ever RIGHTWARD. What sorts of Clintoneque deals with the Big Boyz will we suffer under mister ubercharm?

Watch Florida--Even though the Democrats won't recognize the results because the Republican dominated legislature moved up the date of the primary to come before Super Tuesday, Florida is the first major state where no cross over voting is permitted.

That way Independents and Republicans cannot skew the vote in favor of those whom they would prefer to battle their own party's nominee in November. (The same is true for Democrats too)

Americans are waking up to how imperfect the political system is in America. The Clintons are very corrupt imo and have been lying for years. Thats how they operate and this time they got caught by people who are politically aware and on the left. They clearly lied about Obama's support for Reagan policies and their supporters have been part of a campaign to portray Obama, who is a Christian, as being a Muslim Manchurian candidate.

I just can't vote for Billary if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee.

Obama will try to pull the nation together in a way that no other candidate could. Could he be succesful? I don't know. The right wing in America is very powerful and has convinced ordinary Americans to believe in ideas that are against their own self interests.

But I think Obama is our best shot at helping America go in the right direction.

Imo Edwards is dividing the vote now so that he can help chose Hillary later. After the last debate Hillary spent 20 minutes talking in private with Edwards.

and then there is this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25/feingold-rips-edwards-aga_n_83225.html

"In an interview with the Huffington Post on Thursday, Feingold restated his hesitance to endorse either Sen. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Both, he said, would make great presidents. The same praise was not, however, heaped upon Feingold's former Senate colleague Edwards, whose political sincerity the Wisconsin Democrat questioned.

"I don't understand how somebody could vote, five or six critical votes, one way in the Senate and then make your campaign the opposite positions," Feingold said, expanding on comments he made a week ago to the Appleton (Wisconsin) Post-Crescent. "That doesn't give me confidence that if the person became president that they would continue the kind of policies that they are using in the Democratic primary. I'm more likely to believe what they did in the Senate."

Asked to explain what precisely he found problematic, Feingold offered that Edwards had "taken in" voters by switching positions on several key issues.

"You have to consider what the audience is, and obviously these are very popular positions to take when you are in a primary where you are trying to get the progressive vote. But wait a minute -- there were opportunities to vote against the bankruptcy bill, there was an opportunity to vote against the China [trade] deal. Those are the moments where you sort of find out where somebody is. So I think, people are being taken in a little bit that now he is taking these positions."

The Edwards campaign did not return a request for comment."

a few quick points on to make on a sunday morning.

one-you extreme leftists are just as sick in the head as the neocon-theocrat-fascists we have in power now. While GWB is their perfect candidate, you morons are looking for perfection in some non existent candidate as well. I supported Dennis Kucinich too but he too was far from perfect. you better find a balance in your thinking i hate to think what your personal lives are like being so filled with intolerance, whoa that sounded like I was calling you hypocrits.....

two-some braindead moron way at the beginning of this thread posted that Bill Clinton did nothing good at all. are you a complete mindless idiot.
lets see, taking the largest (at that time) deficit and creating the largest surplus ever wasnt a good thing? creating 22 million jobs wasnt a good thing? making the wealthiest pay their share of taxes wasnt a good thing? and i ought to know about the last one, during the Reagan Bush years I was earning below the poverty level and owing 3000$ a year in taxes, yet when Clinton took office at the same wage level I started getting money back from the government while hearing wealthier people complain. Bill Clinton let me down on a few issues, but all in all he was a damn good president.

three-I have said it before on here a few times. Bush is a murderer, can't get anyworse than that, yet the Repugs walk in lock step, that mey be sick but loyalty and solidarity are important here unless you want President Huckabee. ya know maybe thats what you morons deserve, I can hear it now, a year or two down the road, threads on Common Dreams, aw shucks that Obama wasnt such a bad fellow, now that they have confiscated my ipod and replaced it with a bible and kicked me out of college and into the marines...but i forgot you kids know everything don't you....

JOHN EDWARDS: haircuts, houses and hedge funds.

As a lawyer, Edwards went for the big payoffs, making millions suing doctors, hospitals and corporations and building a net worth he's reported at about $30 million. Edwards wasn't an anti-poverty lawyer, and he did little pro bono work. He didn't emphasize fighting poverty when he ran as a moderate in 1998, defeating Republican Sen. Lauch Faircloth, or during his six years in the Senate.
...

But since his Senate election, he's traded up to progressively tonier residences: a $3.8 million house near Embassy Row in Washington, a $5.2 million house in Georgetown and finally a $6 million house, which includes a full-size indoor basketball court, built in 2005 outside Chapel Hill.

Edwards also took a part-time consulting job with Fortress Investment Group of New York in October 2005. Fortress raises money from wealthy individuals and institutions, pools the cash in private equity or hedge funds and invests it in alternative ways - buying public companies and taking them private, for instance - to beat usual market returns.

With $43 billion under management, including $16 million of Edwards' personal fortune, Fortress is among the major firms in its class. While Fortress was incorporated in Delaware, its hedge funds were incorporated in the Cayman Islands, allowing partners and investors to avoid or defer paying taxes. That's a practice that Edwards frequently has criticized.

Edwards has said he joined Fortress to gain some business experience. The firm paid him $479,512 last year for his advice, according to his disclosure form. Fortress executives are his biggest source of campaign cash from any company or law firm, giving him $190,150.

Two of the firm's holdings have proved particularly troublesome for Edwards: Nationstar Mortgage of Dallas and Green Tree Servicing of St. Paul, Minn., both sub-prime lenders. The Wall Street Journal in August disclosed links among Edwards, Fortress and the two subprime lenders, which had sought to foreclose on victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Edwards launched his campaign in New Orleans' Ninth Ward, linking the post-Katrina problems to his drive to lift people out of poverty.

Edwards instructed officials at Fortress to redirect his investments away from subprime lenders, an effort to repair damage from the story. He also pledged a donation to aid those in Louisiana who were at risk of losing their homes.

He committed $100,000 in seed money - an undisclosed amount of it from his own pocket - to a fund that ACORN Housing set up to assist homeowners who are trying to work out payment plans with lenders.

As he tromps through Iowa farmyards in blue jeans, Edwards often talks about his mill-town roots and his days of fighting corporations in the courtroom. But he rarely mentions the so-called three H's: haircuts, houses and hedge funds.

To the poster who proclaimed Bush as a murderer. Yes, he is. And Obama wants to INCREASE military personnel and spending... doesn't exactly sound like a pacifist. What is this? A progressive forum?... Brain dead leftists. I am done compromising on everything that is ruining this planet and country. I am brain-dead because I don't want to support some smooth talking coporate hack? (He has received almost as much CEO money as Clinton)... Enough. You claim you are progressives? Kucinich, the genuine progressive Democrat is out- it is time to join another party- This one doesn't care about people or the planet; They care about money and power. Enough. Has compromising on the very reasons you call yourselves progressive EVER worked?

It won't really matter anymore. The dogs of this contest are already wearing their master's collars. Same dogs, different colored collars. They are the dogs of war.

A candidate's worth is inversely proportional to their vote. The powers that be have already eliminated any candidate that isn't completely in their pocket. They employ their propaganda arm, the MSM to sell their candidates and the mass of ignorant people buy in. "We can't vote for this weirdo Kucinich because he's mumbling something about UFOs. Instead I'll vote for Hillary because she's a women and I like Bill," or "I'll vote for Obama because he's black and I like his message of hope."

If one of the Dims wins she/he will wring her/his corporate hands and lament that bush "tied her/his hands" in Iraq with [an illegal] "treaty" which prevents her/him from closing down the bases and bringing the troops home. I can just hear Obama: "We must not abandon our friends the Iraqis and the HOPE they have put in us for a brighter and better tomorrow."

So whomever we get, one thing is for sure, the wars will go on and bases will remain in Iraq and everywhere else, well over 160 bases all together. The empire will continue unabated.

Time to dump the Dems and go 3rd party. They aren't worth a bucket of warm spit!

I'm 55, white, female, and voted in SC for Obama. My first choice was Kucinich, my second choice was Edwards. I apologized to the nice Edwards volunteer on the phone for my vote. BUT there is a need to unite behind non-Clinton; "they" keep writing the narrative; the SC papers have already labelled the Obama vote "racial" and the narrative assumption is that Edwards votes were taken from Hllary. Not from the Edwards voters I know, but then I'm pretty clearly nonrepresentative, so my friends likely are also. But I've seen polls backing me up on this. If you add Edwards to Obama votes, they beat Hillary in SC, as well as everywhere else. We can't have everything we want, but we literally have to take back the Democratic party before we can take back the country. Obama is far from perfect; hell, Kucinich isn't perfect; but he's not Clinton, he's not DLC. In **that**, there really is hope.

This is all about whether you want to replace the Dubya puppet with a Hillary puppet or an Obama puppet.

If you don't want a puppet. If you don't want more of what we've been given for the last 30 years straight, then don't vote Dem or Rethug.

I don't think much of Obama, but he did vote against the war, and, as such, I always get a kick when he beats Hillary.

How about some crocodile tears tomorrow at some diner down south, Hillary?

3rd party? i think there should be aboout 6 different parties. real diversity, real checks and balances. but if someone doesnt lay the foundation the point is moot.
hypothetical: lets says some wildcard got elected. lets say Nader. now theres a house and senate full of dems and repugs. its a given that alot of dems would vote with nader on his initiatives. but the blue dogs would vote with the repugs and some repugs might cross over cancelling each other out and the hardline repugs remain. IE nothing gets done unless someone reaches across the aisle. hmmm you mean compromise? you mean be in the middle of the road? a moderate candidate? so in order to get work done Ralph would have to "sell out". oh man I could see the threads on CD now.

anyway to the guy complaining about my earlier comments. yes i think that anyone that is extreme one way or the other has mental problems. i consider myself to be mostly liberal, FDR, JFK, et al, but i know there are alot of ideas that i have that might be considered to be pretty conservative. doesnt mean that I am not a liberal, just means that I have some balance. a necesary element for sanity.

Even the most cynical person here would think at least Obama presents a chance to make a departure from the status quo both domestically and internationally. He has said he will engage in diplomacy unconditionally, as opposed to Hillary who thinks he is "naive" and wants to continue insulting and berating world leaders.

Up until 2000, he was very supportive of Palestinian rights, but then swung very hard for AIPAC to win the Senate seat. That's where he has been most disingenuous and disappointing and hope he is just hiding his humanity to get through the loyalty test imposed on all candidates by the Israeli lobby which can't even countenance the slightest ounce of compassion for human beings they see as their "untermenschen" enemy.

However if you want to see the cataclysmic end of the American Empire for something new, then you vote Republican. But that's like what the German communists did in the 1930s who believed the Nazis were just a passing fad, and they'd be next in power. Boy were they wrong and ended up in Dachau for their troubles.

Obama didn't vote against the war- he was not a Senator then. He "spoke against" the war. ...He speaks well, but that is seemingly his greatest talent.
Liberal With An Attitude- it is all semantics. Extreme? ... Is it extreme to want the Earth to thrive despite our atrocities? To think that human beings can evolve beyond war and imperialism? ... No. It isn't. It is necessary or we will be suffering with the consequences by ignoring and compromising on the most critical of issues.

To use an analogy, the economy is like a ship. Edwards has to convince people that, not only can he help them survive the ship wreck, but that he can build an new ship and sail it back on course.
Obama promises to build a ship and bring everyone to the promise land, but what he fails to mention is that unless you are, at the very minimum, upper-middle-class, you won't be on it. You will be on drift wood watching it go past.

Sadly, even those who need help to survive the ship wreck (or are in danger of not surviving the ship wreck) want a vision of being back on a non leaking ship and the candidate who can sell that can give the illusion of hope.

Those who vote for illusory hope this time around won't bother voting next time - especially if Obama gets in - because office has a way of turning mirages back to sand.

Listen to Mulroney speak - you can still see glimmers of the Obama-like charisma which swept him to power - yet, somehow, it isn't enough any more. If you are so sure that nothing can dissuade you from voting for Obama, listen to Mulroney speak:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071212/mulroney_testifies_071213/20071213/

RE: - And Obama wants to INCREASE military personnel and spending

To be honest, Edwards only refers to COMBAT missions and COMBAT troops. Never ever has he ruled out the use of troops trained in peace-keeping or disaster relief. This is the opposite of Bush who told everyone that he was going to cut down on peace-keeping missions why fighting for reelection. The TV stations misrepresented Bush's position as one of reducing troops and Bush only said that he would reduce the use of American Peace-keepers but never ever promised a reduction of troops used for COMBAT purposes.

Obama doesn't seem to make the distinction between COMBAT troops and peace-keepers - which is scary enough.

RE: - As a lawyer, Edwards went for the big payoffs, making millions suing doctors, hospitals and corporations

In other words, Edwards fought for the little guy against selfish moneyed interests - it is only pro-bono when you lose!

This talk of hair cuts is silly - no one is going to run for higher office in a magic-cut haircut and a suit purchased at Sally-Ann's.

RE: - buying public companies and taking them private

Are you accusing him of being involved in the sale of Crown corporations to private for-profit interests? That is a very serious allegation. Do you have facts to back this up or is it just another Obamite half-truth smear!

I cringed when McCain started talking about privatizing FEMA so this is definitely an issue I would like to see discussed in the next debate.

RE: - during the Reagan Bush years I was earning below the poverty level and owing 3000$ a year in taxes, yet when Clinton took office at the same wage level I started getting money back from the government while hearing wealthier people complain. Bill Clinton let me down on a few issues, but all in all he was a damn good president.

But look at who you are comparing and contrasting Bill with RONNIE REAGAN! Huckabee would look good next to Reagan. Clinton would be glad if she could turn the next debate into one between Bill's record and Ronnie and Obama gave her that opening. Bill Blaikie admits that, with a little pulling of teeth, he was able to get Bill Clinton to do the odd good thing for workers - so you should be thanking Blaikie for Bill Clinton having anywhere near the record he has.

BTW - asked the local Neo-Con on a non-political board who the person is supporting and the person said that Huckabee is not a Conservative that that this person only votes for Conservatives. I figure that one for Romney.

RE: - The Clintons are very corrupt imo and have been lying for years.

You make Billary sound like the Jean Cretien/Paul Martin Liberals!

RE: - With Kucinich out and Edwards very nearly out, we have two viable choices:

Repetition doesn't make something true. Henry Champ says that Edwards is "running on fumes" because he is almost out of money - to try to convince us that just because he looks like he is still in the game he isn't. That is the big reason being used to dismiss Edwards is his lack of big money.

RE: - she is going to cater to the corporate power elite, as did hubby Bill, and likely pass legislation that won't help the average American, such as NAFTA

We would not be talking this way if they had including workers rights and protections into NAFTA and did not give so much leverage to corporations. NAFTA could have been a totally different agreement. Many of the things that Edwards is talking about now are things that Bill Blaikie pushed to get into FTA/NAFTA but did not manage to. Maybe his daughter Rebecca will have more luck.

This is just one political twin beating the other.

Does it matter which one gives you:
nuclear power
free trade
lobbyist dominated White House
HMO run health insurance
schools hooked on corporate standardized tests
rich campaign contributors who will put limits on what they can do
a muscular foreign policy
increase in the size of the army
increase in the size of the "defense" department...
etc., etc.,
and on and on.

The new boss will be the same as the old boss, whether it is a black man or a woman.

Do not kid yourself.

ormernadervoter - if Obama or Clinton are half as bad as that, they have no business any where near the White House.

RE: - Obama didn't vote against the war- he was not a Senator then.

Strange that Obama tends to leave that part out of his discussion on the issue.

RE: - I'm 55, white, female, and voted in SC for Obama. My first choice was Kucinich, my second choice was Edwards. I apologized to the nice Edwards volunteer on the phone for my vote. BUT there is a need to unite behind non-Clinton;

ongingforsanity, I am sad to hear that. Not just because I believe in Edwards but because Obama is basically Clinton-lite.

You do admit to the role of polls in your decision process - meaning these polls are influencing public opinion rather than just reflecting public opinion. If this is the case, there should be a ban on reporting polls two days before a vote. The British comedy "Yes Minister" shows how polls can be manipulated:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

RE: - Watch the Clinton Machine come right back and crush all 'hope' !

Obama's campaign of false hope is easier to crush by Obama gaining office than by Clinton's mudslinging.

RE: - When will people realize Edwards is the true candidate of hope? It is frustrating people in his own state can't grasp the importance of an anti-corporate agenda

Maybe when Karlheinz Schreiber takes the stand again on Thursday, the importance of getting the corporate lobby out of government will become front and centre. In my opinion, Pat Martin is chomping at the bit to figure out the role of smooch money in the designing of NAFTA. You all know that you can watch cpac.ca live on line?

Question Period resumes Monday between 2:05 and 2:15 Eastern time 1:05 and 1:15 Texas time and goes on for 40 minutes a day. Strange how much of that time is spent dealing with stuff that appears on Common Dreams.

EDWARDS WILL GO DOWN IN AMERICA'S HISTORY AS THEIR GREATEST PRESIDENT!

If you are even thinking of voting Obama or Clintion, I suggest you watch Question Period - and all the questions raised that neither Obama or Clinton want to talk about.

Webwalk - Comment #3 above - has it right, all you armchair kibbitzers out there! Shake the lard out and start thinking about possibilities! I've put my ideas out here several times about building a movement; let's hear yours!

none of the candidates are trustworthy. Edwards is no different from the rest.

Obama may be better than Clinton but in the end you cant be the president of a country like the uS and make major changes. Have to wait for the economy to collapse.

I think white voters may desert Obama, and Clinton will win with her connections--and then probably lose to McCain.

If there is an october surprise it will be some sort of attack --perhaps against a military target--and that will get people to go for McCain.

I won't be voting since there's obviously not going to be a viable, worthy candidate, imo.

But as for why Obama drew a lot more support last night than Clinton did, Greg Palast's following article might be more fitting to consider.

"South Carolina Primary Colors: Black and White?
White Sheets and Black Votes: The South Carolina You Won't See on CNN",
by Greg Palast, Jan 25 2008,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7898

What I'm more specifically referring to is NAFTA, and the other means through which globalisation has been used to DISAPPEAR jobs from the U.S. These have impacted, including clobberingly (like in my case) many Americans, and there are the other Americans who haven't been impacted but who nonetheless care about the racket, govt-corporate or corporate-govt racket, these programs have really represented.

These Americans usually know very well that the most guilty people for this is Bill Clinton and the rest of his then complacent, etc., administration. And we know very well that Hillary has always been quite totally silent about this major socio-economic injustice and corrupation of our govt.

Sure, Clinton didn't establish the H-1B program, which was initiated by Bush Sr and, from what I read back in the 1990s, to do his son working for some law firm a favour; and while doing that against the irrefutably excellent arguments of Dr Norman Matloff of I believe UC Berkeley. The U.S. Dept of Labour or Commerce had opposed the establishment of the H-1B program more than Dr Matloff did, but he's the one who was right and just.

The U.S. Dept, whichever of the two it was, said that there was absolutely no justification for the h-1b program at all. Dr Matloff corrected this by saying that there was justification, but only for around 15,000 visas per year, and strictly for bringing in foreign professionals with either masters degrees or PhDs, whichever of the two would be required for a job in question. As for people with bachelors degrees and less, he and the U.S. Dept were both totally right; there then was absolutely no justification for the h-1b program.

But Bush Sr had to absolutely do his privileged son a BIG favour; a-la racket family again or as usual with such families.

Yet Bush Sr was president for a very SHORT period at this point, and while he had initially and very unacceptably established the yearly limit on visas to 65,000 or 60,000, Billy-schmuck doubled the limit, and then let it become tripled, from the initial limit. 60,000, btw, is already 4x greater than 15,000, which was the max. limit that could be justified.

WE REMEMBER. I will NEVER forget; I've been totally wiped out since 1998-99, and there's NO likilihood of finding work again, for I'd need to relocate, which'd mean needing to live homeless, on the streets, with ZERO for money, etc., and that's just not a situation in which it's likely to find work. So my collapse is very LONG TERM and I therefore will surely NEVER FORGET.

And there are other reasons to oppose any of the Clinton family members, for, f.e., NONE has ever said a word against the war crimes, and other crimes against humanity, of Billy-schmuck when he was president.

But Obama is NO promising candidate with respect to war; the only advantage he really has against Hillary in this regard is that he's not married to a universally known war criminal. Dennis Kucinich says it well (incidentally very much as I've said numerous times over the past year or so).

"Breaking the Sound Barrier:
Democracy Now! Re-Hosts NBC Las Vegas Debate to Include Kucinich After NBC Wins Appeal to Exclude Him", Jan 16 2008,

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_democracy_now

That makes for pleasant reading in terms of what he said and which we know is illustrative of his very constant sort of view or position.

For people who lack the courage to abstain from voting, by refusing to shed themselves of their brainwashing, I can understand them wanting to vote for Obama; but I'm not brainwashed into believing that voting is ever a responsibility, except when there truly are candidates worthy of MY personal vote.

Maybe I'll be with the majority again, the abstainers, who usually outnumber the votes any elected candidates get; thereby making us the majority, [really]. :)

Even the most cynical person here would think at least Obama presents a chance to make a departure from the status quo both domestically and internationally.
_________________________________________________________

Hi. Thanks for thinking of me. I actually believe that Obama has two chances to make a departure from the status quo both domestically and internationally: slim and none.

I'll enjoy seeing the Nexus 6 Hillary Clinton model being retired, if it happens. But I don't expect much from a messianic meta-politician.

While I greatly respect and admire Jimmy Carter, and recognize that his administration was undermined by his own party, insofar as Tip O'Neill had no love for the Georgia Mafia "outsiders" who invaded his town-- does no one remember a similar "Jimmymania" in 1975?

The Amerikan people were dying to feel "good" about politics again, and that hypocritical old fraud Gerry Ford wasn't making it. Like Obama, Jimmy Carter was that breath of fresh air that lifted the Democratic constituency's spirits and catapulted him into the Oval Office. The rest is history.

As formernadervoter and COMarc have pointed out, Obama is no less of an exceptionalist, militarist, and corporatist than his rival. I'm also put off by his smarmy political and religious piety, including proclaiming the virtues of Ronald Reagan while sniffing disdainfully at "the excesses of the Sixties and Seventies"-- which implies social "excesses", not excesses like the Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos wars of aggression and the S&L and Iran/Contra scandals.

And he's another Friend of the Reich of Zion, unless we are to believe that he's just practicing the normal mendacity of a politician and "shrewdly" making overtures to the government of Israel; he dashed off a letter to the UN Ambassador recommending that the Ambassador insist that the Palestinians be roundly condemned for their anemic rocket assaults on Israel, and affirming the canard of Israel's absolute right of self-defense.

I am not pleased or self-satisfied to find that I sink further and further into morbid cynicism regarding Amerikan politics, believe me. But I am no longer able to practice the necessary doublethink to inspire political optimism and hope, e.g. on the one hand, trusting and believing in a promising candidate when he (she) expresses appealing positions and attitudes, but simultaneously nullifying or rationalizing the contradictory indications as shrewd political gamesmanship: "running to the right" in order to get elected and govern as a progressive, or justifying intolerable positions because the candidate has to appeal to an entire spectrum of voters, not just me.

Thus endeth the wheezings of a canary in the coal mine.

Stiv Whitman, that was a disgusting regurgitation of the right-wing talking points about John Edwards. You know, the three H's, haircuts, houses and hedge funds. Your garbage means nothing here. Take it to Limbaugh, Boortz, O'Really and their ilk. You'll get more mileage out of it there.
EDWARDS '08

Clinton cannot win, morally or otherwise. People need to stop imaging Hillary as an answer to America's problems in their own minds. Hillary's experience with power is her motivation. Her chats or questions and answer sessions are not for us. They are for her because she is learning what you want to hear!!! Get it, now?
Remember others with experience- Sadam,any of Grimm's step mothers, Qaddafi,Stalin, Torquemada,THE BUSH FAMILY!! PLEASE VOTE OBAMA!!

let me dispute an inference one could draw from the article:

With all results in, Obama took more than twice as many votes as Hillary Clinton, winning 55% of the vote against her 27%. The win - which far exceeded expectations - was the first time any candidate has won more than 50% of the vote in any of the four primary contests.

michigan did hold a primary, and there clinton got 55% of the democratic vote. if the national democratic party were realistic, they would count michigan's as well as florida's delegates. the sad thing is that the only candidate to campaign here in michigan was dennis kucinich, who has since dropped out. if 55% is a landslide in south carolina, it is a landslide in michigan.

--"The crowd chanted "Race doesn't matter". But race did play a part. Obama took 78% of the African-American vote but did poorly among white voters, except for those below the age of 24."--

Now that's the kind of reporting that makes the point that the status quo will continue to put up the fight of its life. But mark my words: Change is in the air!

Now the fact that 78 percent of the African-American voter voted for Obama, does not prove that race did count. As someone who is of color can attest what swayed me to Obama is the desire and hope for a color blind society of the sort that Dr. Martin Luther King dreamed of when the content of a person's character counted, and not the color of the skin. Let me say to you, Ewen MacAskill and Suzanne Goldenberg, there are people out there whose spirit has not been killed by racism, and who continue to carry and hold the highest aspirations of MKL.
Furthermore: do not discount the wisdom of those under 24 whose lives have not been tainted by hoplessness and cynicism, and who sent a very strong message to all the politicians, "Yes, we can!"

Why is it a landslide in Michigan when Edwards and Obama were not even on the ballot? All the candidates agreed not to campaign in MI thanks to the DNC who choose to disenfranchise Michigan voters. Clinton got her name on the ballot against her agreement not to. Tells you all you need to know about her character and if you doubt that take the swiftboating of Obama by her attack dog: Bubba. The Clinton campaign is polluting the well we all drink from. My guess is this will alienate independent voters who may be attrackted to a Bloomberg run or may find McCain more to their liking. Hill will do anything and say anything to win even if that means throwing the election to the Repuds.

Webwalk and ChrisHorton have it right. Even if Kucinich had won the nomination, or Edwards, they wouldn't have been able to do squat without a powerful mass movement pushing Congress to enact good legislation. Look at Kennedy, whose heart, I believe, was in the right place. He got very little passed through Congress of what he wanted, including civil rights legilsation. It took a Southerner with Johnson's personal commitment to desegregation (I'm sorry, he was not just responding to the pressure of the civil rights movement, he really believed in what he pushed as well, as his record shows) and his willingness to wheel and deal (and also willingness to risk giving the "Solid (Democratic) South" to the Republicans for good) AND the pressure of the civil rights movement, to get the key legislation done. It would have failed without both components.

So, as for Hillary v. Obama. I was for Edwards, still am, hoping he can do well enough to have some clout with whatever number of delegates he can win, and at least stay in with his message as long as possible. But Hillary is a known, hopeless disaster. Her lifelong record is as a Democratic Karl Rove--whatever it takes to get and hold on to power. She ran Bill's White House like Rove ran Bush's--cross Bill, and be banished forever from access. Her completely unprincipled, Rovian attacks on Obama--leaflets in Iowa accusing him of being soft on pro-choice issues (the head of Chicago's NOW chapter switched to Obama from Hillary over this issue--see DailyKos), and above all this preposterous claim that his statement about Reagan was support of Reagan's policies--shows what kind of campaign she will run, what kind of White House she will run, and what kind of person she really is.

This is so qualitatively worse than Obama, backing him as a firewall against Hillary is a no-brainer, if Edwards isn't an option. He inspires. The people he brings in WILL be a positive influence on him. People DO respond to their base. Like FDR, who got his compassion for the little person at Warm Springs, and became a class traitor in the eyes of that era's establishment. THAT'S WHERE WE COME IN, as Webwalk says: STARTING NOW, WE MUST BUILD THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT that is already stronger than it has been at least since the 1930s, and arguably the strongest in American history in terms of its ability to clearly see the issues and to continue to grow and appeal to more and more of the population, including traditional Republicans as they get hit harder and harder by the economic fallout of free trade and corporate dictatorship over Washington.

Organizations like Progressive Democrats of America, DFA, Wellstone Action and myriad others, are part of that movement. PDA in particular focuses on what it calls its "inside-outside" strategy--doing everything possible to promote progressive candidates, such as Donna Edwards against Al Wynn in Maryland next week's Dem primary, get progressives elected in county and state Democratic committees, and lobbying Congress members on the Hill, while also working "outside" against the War, for single payer health care, and trying to pull together every other organization possible to make the progressive coalition as strong as possible.

Obama is the best we can hope for, and the stronger we build our movement, the more influence we will have in keeping him honest and holding him to his promises (he isn't totally a blank slate, and I don't see you can say his heart isn't in the right place--I think he's primarily a babe in the woods--I think Edwards is much tougher, and better understands what he will be up against if he tries to be another FDR). Any other course is tantamount to suicide, to saying it's simply hopeless, it doesn't matter who wins. It does.

Peter Rush

Who on this forum has experienced RACISM and SEXISM?

I have experienced both.

Obama doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, especially with an African American woman as his wife (a black first lady?....all the conservatives would rather rot in hell before that happens..)

Hillary is lucky to have the Clinton name...it might actually catapult a woman to power...

Finally,

HILLARY IS NOT BILL...so why bring up his record of mistakes during her campaign??

She has always been more liberal than her husband..

Finally, like most politicians, the question is not whether Obama can be bought. The question is "when and for how much?"