Ray wrote: "Real leaders are visionary people who get the masses to see the same kind of vision that they have. Are any of the candidates visionary? Sorry!"

I think Obama comes the closest of anyone who has a real shot at being president; Caroline Kennedy has said he's the only presidential candidate since her father who has the same qualities of leadership and vision of JFK; Uncle Ted has endorsed him, too. He's been inspiring his audiences and -- who knows? -- may actually turn out to be more progressive than some on this thread want to acknowledge.

America seems to be going through a shift in public sentiment as radical as that in the 1930s; George W. Bush has destroyed the modern conservative movement, and a majority are fed up with Republican authoritarianism and narrowmindedness -- not to mention that it has failed abysmally to keep its promises. Obama could very well be the president who will lead us into a new progressive zeitgeist, the real first president of the 21st century.

But even if he doesn't, he's still a damn sight better than Willy Mitt, Madman McCain, Huckleberry or the Brooklyn Vampire.

RSJ January 28th, 2008 7:05 pm
Thanks for the info. on where Obama stands and what he hasn't mentioned.

ray January 28th, 2008 10:49 pm
Well said! I understand what you are saying about avoiding controversy or lose votes and about us being the pavers, thanks.

I am always amused. I just can't help it when I read your thought provoking comments here, which are far more insightful than the original article. I admire the secretive way in which you promote your favorite with polite attacks on the other guy. My favorite is the question of where Obama stands on issues like rendition and torture. Perhaps you and I would like to think that the candidates have failed to clarify their positions but perhaps the best thing for them is to avoid being too specific because it will lose them support from somebody who now has a reason to disagree with them. I won't kid you on this, I don't like any of the candidates, but I will never ever vote for a Clinton.

I think the real problem is that progressive thinkers have failed to win over the population with all of our brilliance. That's right folks; YOU and I are the one's who failed. We are the real leaders, and it is us who have to change the way that America thinks. We have to convince Americans that the constitution is worth protecting, that rendition is wrong, that imprisonment without charges is wrong, and that spying on citizens without a warrant is unacceptable. Until we win the battle for the hearts and minds of America, no progressive candidate stands a chance. A candidate can't take a stance of agreeing with me on any issue because I haven't paved the way by winning over the masses. :)

Real leaders are visionary people who get the masses to see the same kind of vision that they have. Are any of the candidates visionary? Sorry!

Clinton and Edwards did not vote for more inspectors. They voted for war. In fact, the resolution that Clinton and Edwards voted for has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.

What H.J. Resolution 114 "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" actually says:

"Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf

"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…

We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.

That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

"Cost is the number one reason that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance and thousands more are edging toward bankruptcy every day…What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it."- Barack Obama

The Mitt Romney Massachusetts Mandated Health Insurance Plan

"But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.

Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state's insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year's national average. That would undercut the plan's secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs."We're going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits," said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. "If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don't think health reform is sustainable."…

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html

"Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who was tapped by leaders to oversee ethics overhaul, said the legislation would "ensure that committees aren't slipping in earmarks in the dead of night."

After overcoming resistance inside his own party, Mr. Obama pushed for a provision requiring, for the first time, disclosure by lobbyists who bundle political contributions of more than $15,000 in six months.

"My argument was that it was worth it for us to try to be aggressive on this front, particularly since we were just coming into power," Mr. Obama said, adding that he wished the rules could be enforced by an outside group. "I do think that the public would have more confidence in the process if we had an independent enforcement mechanism."

The legislation is designed to limit the social interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers, making it more difficult for them to get together at sporting events, parties at national political conventions and other social activities.

The bill also deprives former members of Congress who now work as lobbyists of some of the privileges that critics say give them an advantage in pushing legislation. The measure revokes floor privileges to former lawmakers who are lobbying, and denies them access to the House and Senate gyms, other exercise facilities and members-only parking."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/washington/03lobby.html

"Obama got start in civil rights practice"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/20/obama_got_start_in_civil_rights_practice/

"The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.
It's about the past versus the future."- Barack Obama, South Carolina Victory Speech

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

"What counts in our leadership is not the length of years in Washington, but the reach of our vision, the strength of our beliefs, and that rare quality of mind and spirit that can call forth the best in our country and our people.

With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion.

With Barack Obama, we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay.

With Barack Obama, we will close the door on the old economics that has written off the poor and left the middle class poorer and less secure.

He offers a strategy for prosperity—so that America will once again lead the world in better standards of life.

I know that he's ready to be President on day one."- Senator Kennedy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eawu8pQxRI

Tailcap, since I've watched some of Obama's C-Span, and interviews elsewhere, I'll try to answer your questions:

Does anyone know wher Obama stands on:
1) impeachment

He hasn't mentioned it, like most of the Dems.

2) torture

He's solidly against it.

3) immigration

He's in favor of letting undocumented workers living and working here become US citizens through the normal process. Children of UW's born here would remain US citizens. Against mass deportations.

4) illegal spying (FISA)

He's against it. Govt. must have a warrant.

5) illegality of the war and the 935 lies that came with it

Haven't heard what he has to say about the Center for Public Integrity's '935 Iraq lies' report yet, but he is against the Iraq War; he called it a dumb war that should have never been fought.

6) granting telecommunications companies immunity for aiding in domestic spying

Not sure, but I'd bet he's against this.

7) Diebold election fraud/fraud in Florida 2000,/fraud in Ohio 2004 etc.

Hasn't mentioned it to my knowledge.

The Israeli blockade against Gaza Strip and ongoing humanitarian catastrophe

Hasn't mentioned it to my knowledge, but he is for a brokered peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

9) Katrina

Wants to use FEMA -- with competent management -- to alleviate suffering of poor. Wants to stop privatization of services in New Orleans and let people return to their homes.

10) bush's attempt to circumvent congress and make a treaty with Iraq….

He's against it.

Okay, Alank, you're right in what you say -- welcome to the real world, it's not fair. hat do you propose to cure the problems -- elect another Republican in 2008? Obama does have plans beyond just saying 'hope' and 'change' but you'll have to go to his website and read them.

Ardee, Obama does have a resume and experience; you should try to familiarize yourself with them before you spout nonsense.

Ike Kay, Obama does have some ideas about the environment, but you'll have to go to his website to read them.

Like I said, give me a viable third party candidate and I'll vote for him or her in a heartbeat. Cynthia McKinney? You've got to be kidding -- most Americans haven't even heard of her and can she even get on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral votes needed to become president? Obama and Hillary will likely be only a little better than a Republican, but a little better is better than nothing. The country can't survive another four years of GOP rule.

Xtine2, do you recall about 25 years ago when Harold Washington ran for mayor of Chicago? Most of the experts said he didn't have a chance of getting elected in a city with a lily-white political machine and run by men from the most racist parts of town. when Washington got the Dem nomination, the white Dems of the vestiges of the Daley machine were encouraging voters to back Bernie Epton, the Republican. It was one of the nastiest campaigns I've ever seen, yet Harold won with a majoirty of the minority vote unting with north side liberal whites. They said it couldn't happen, but it did. Now, the son of the racist Daley Machine is mayor, and he's backing Obama. When you say Barack doesn't have a chance of being elected in a bigoted nation like the US, I remember that's just what they said about Harold Washington in Chicago. Times have changed.

BTW, do you really believe Hillary is above dirty tricks to get elected? Of course, she wouldn't attack herself -- she'd use surrogates. That's the way it works.

All these ridiculous allegations that Clintons are playing dirty are merely speculative.

There is no proof that any of the rumors, tactics come from Hillary's campaign.

Just because the media says it, doesn't mean its true.

I've been inside many campaigns, and know that anyone could start these accusations, and as long as the media backs it up (even without any proof) most people will take it as gospel.

Its an insidious tactic known very well by all camps ....including Obama and the Republican spin machine...

None of Hillary's actual statements are equal to the negative spin they have received in the press.

This idea of "Dirty Tricks" by the Clintons is just the work of active and unhealthy imaginations, supported by the controversy-hungry media.

That she-male comment is just sick! What do you want Hillary to be Zwinky (a winky-toy with a zed in front) or worse - a Bratz doll - easy breezy beautiful and, like Cold Ethyl (that personification of the ideal 50's woman), with no desires of her own but there only to serve the needs of others? There is nothing wrong with being an intelligent competent woman - though there is something gravely wrong with being a corporate shrill who plays dirty.

RE: - Edwards can't win the nomination without delegates, and coming in third in every primary means he won't have enough delegates to defeat either Hillary or Obama — if he can't win in his own home state of South Carolina, where can he come in first? I don't see any Super Tuesday state where he can win — do you?

Well I think that you heard of Hillary's robocalls by now. The same tricks and strategies don't work repeatedly because, once used, those that they were used on are thinking about how to counter them. And, even with the dirty trick, it was close and Clinton ended up with two delegates - the same as Edwards.

There is the debate before Super Tuesday. And even if Edwards comes in second - beating Hillary in some States and Obama in others he can put one or other of his opponents out of the race.

I remember when Glen Murray ran for Mayor. Some voted for him just because he was gay. Some voted against him just because he was gay. But most people voted on the issues. Glen Murray was running against Peter Kaufmann who wanted to close food banks because he considered them unfair competition for his small chain of grocery stores.

I would vote for John Edwards if he were male or female, black or white, straight or gay, christian or muslim, etc because, metaphorically, the two people he is running against are beholden to those who think like Peter Kaufmann.

RE: - The economy is collapsing and keep in mind that FDR wasn't considered all that liberal when he was elected in 1932 — he evolved into a stronger progressive president in the succeeding years. Since I know some of Obama's relatives and talked to him both before he ran for office and after he was elected to the Senate, I can tell you he is a progressive a heart, but he's also a smart politician, smart enough to realize you have to get elected to get anything done.

Maybe he is or was. Personally, I see this campaign as a battle for Obama's soul and think that it is between him becoming President and him hanging onto his soul. Obama is dating those who expect "fringe benefits" for their support. They will not take it too well if you are right and he is playing them for fools. On the other hand, if Obama does give them something in return for their support, he's lost his soul to the collective corporate devil.

I think that the best thing that could happen to Obama is to be Edwards's VP and, after serving under the example of a moral man, then taking his experience as VP and turning it into a future Presidency 8 years from now.

Right now Obama likes flattery too much, and the corporate devil after his soul knows it. Right now he trusts the wrong people.

Obama is being very vague about his message - which means that he fears being specific. Clinton is playing dirty - which means that winning is more important that all else - that policy is secondary to power.

RE: - I also have questioned some of Obama's past votes, such as the one for Condi Rice as Sec. of State,

Well, as with any vote, it is the discussion which takes place beforehand which is important. Someone had to be Secretary of State and none of the people Bush would put forwards would have been completely satisfactory to the Dems. Cheney is trying to convince Bush to bomb Iran and Rice is trying to convince Bush not to. That said, Rice can't admit to anything that the administration doesn't want her too. Why doesn't Bush just choose his Secretaries from elected members of Congress like Canada, the UK, Germany and Australia do?

Did you ever see the Susan Bonner interview with Condi Rice? The funny part is watching how she goes from strained to relieved and back again depending on the question. The phrase "apocalyptic language" still makes me laugh:

Video (right)
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/10/25/rice-canada051025.html?ref=rss
Transcript
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/55576.htm

RE: - Read the polls: Hillary has much higher negatives than Obama.

Obama's biggest strength is that he's an unknown entity. Thus, anyone can read the policies they want from Obama's vague words.

RE: - Does anyone know wher Obama stands on:

Not really.

RE: - John mc cain's new commercial and i quote.."floridians are concerned about radical islamic terrorists."

Not even the staunchest neo con politician in Canada would say something like that. It is one thing to refer to the Taliban as terrorists (like Harper did when suspected Taliban prisoners complained of torture), but no party will run a candidate which appears to label a whole group like that.

RE: - But most modern day racism is more insidious. Many liberals are anti-racists only because they love the downtrodden. They start singing a different tune when one of "them" gets uppity and thinks he can run for president.

F word deleted. Do you really believe that Edwards wants to help the marginalized because he wants to keep them marginalized! That is the biggest load of crap I've read yet! What you are basically arguing is that, unless a candidate cares more about corporations than people, then he is racist! People who work hard deserve a living wage. All kids who want to go to University or College should be able to NOT just those with rich parents! And laws should apply to all equally - that is not "loving the downtrodden" but despising those who benefit financially from keeping them that way.

It is about time you start judging Obama on his platform and not automatically assuming that everyone who isn't supporting Obama is a racist.

Obamton and Hillarack continue to duke it out. If only they could be genetically modified into one person. Black/white she-males for President! Viva the middle ground!

I have not noticed anything quite the level of interest that this political adventure has elicited here in this Blog. When important environmental statements rise out of the mounds of print and spin, I notice nowhere near the level of thinking and opinion or knowledge greets us here as this political horse race.

We have a situation where I would be prepared to see anyone in the (Democratic?) party take control excepting the Clintons. The selling of dreams and hope is very good sounds great and I support Obama and his vision, but without concrete proposals, other than arguing about health care and some other social ideas, his candidacy for me and others looks like a pretty balloon without the power of air to see its beauty but I do understand why. His commitment to the most vague of ideas is ever present and I can understand that as a Politician who has lived in the halls of congress, he has experienced the difficulty of trying to get good laws passed, particularly when one does not have a majority party, so much for the accusation of voting "present, rather than yes or no" in congress, that is too simplistic but most politicians are that and Obama is trying to raise the bar.

Even with a majority the American people have seen what has happened with the will of the people after the Democrats received majority, under the stewardship of Reed and Pelosi. To have development of the country take place with laws passed on key issues like Climate Change, environmental issues of every kind and energy issues there first must be a majority of like-minded people and all of us know that with the electoral system which really does not reflect the will of the people that can be difficult at the best of times.

I understand that Obama refuses to give the Clintons more to shoot at and therefore specifics of his policies is left out for later on when the nomination process look closer to becoming a reality for Obama. His positions on the environment and so many other vital issues stay under wraps. He has alluded to the fact that the environment plays an important part of his thinking. Indeed, it will effect every major decision to be made in the future: troop withdrawal, change in foreign policy, tax reform, economic issues and so many others which will be affected by climate change. The American people are worried about the stock market, to hell with the rest!

I do understand Obma's recognition that at this point the possibility of negative and underhand comments like those of the Clintons and others could distort any major statements about anything of consequence. We have seen the disortions of the truth nevr mind ideas we saw that clearly with very little, with something important it would indeed become a major negative force in the campaign and could severely hurt Obama. He is trying to rise above the media and the opposition.

It should be the roll of media in debates must address the major substance and issues but they are too consumed by sports and fashion issues and other rubbish to truly deal with issues that are so vitally important t the American people and the world. Their masters care little about being heard on major isues that might affect profit. The are told by the Turners, GE and others what to ask and we can be certain that the American people will continue to be dumbed down by the media and Clinton-like policies that distort and continue to lower the political process, with innuendo. The Swift Boat election process continues.

I am reading Jacques Ellul's "Propaganda," ardee, and am gettin the impression we have been in that rabbit hole for some time.

Hopefully, b4kids' hopes will pan out.

Even if it were Kucinich in the lead, it would still be folly if all of us didn't organize among real people, toning down faith in whomever delegated to the one office. I do think, though, along with tailcap, that both Obama and HC need to start talkin Kucinichspeak simply to augment some small degree of living hope in this nation...given our current predicament. Bag this shock doctrine and Hollywood gossip and the whole nine yards and let's wake up.

We are so screwed. We have descended into the rabbit hole of American politics wherein a candidate doesnt need a resume, or experience at the national level, or even find the necesity for saying anything concrete in order to win support from an electorate so dumbed down that they believe the race to be a popularity contest....
Democracy doesnt work when the electorate is so uninvolved intellectually fromt he process.

@MikeBinSC January 27th, 2008 3:41 pm

Yep. Martin Luther King III endorses John Edwards
and not even commondreams will cover the story!
Too funny.
too true,
too real,
too sad.

I now wonder about the Kennedy endorsement. It came one week after MLK, III
endorsed Edwards. I wonder if they were just being "tactical" and trying to
thwart whatever praise Edwards might have gotten from his endorsement.
Too weird.

Ironically, racism is not a black and white issue. It has many shades of gray. At one end of the spectrum is the stereotypical racist – a KKK lynch mob member. But most modern day racism is more insidious. Many liberals are anti-racists only because they love the downtrodden. They start singing a different tune when one of "them" gets uppity and thinks he can run for president.

By way of analogy, in the movie Charly, the Cliff Robertson character was the darling of open minded liberals as long as he was mentally challenged. But once he became an intellectual force to be reckoned with – after an experimental surgery – he was not so beloved.

Many "open minded" liberals are sympathetic to the plight of the victimized, provided the latter don't forget their place.

tailcap, nope. I do know it's harder to attack a moving target. I'm gambling that he has a lot more integrity than Hillary and given the opportunity will use his power of office to help others than the haves and have mores. Like I said, he's holding his cards close to his chest. To do anything else would bring on attacks. And as I said, I could be wrong, but from where I'm looking, the alternatives stink, and so far, he doesn't. Maybe he will and I'll go back to my third party votes or whatever. I'm not impressed by his meager and somewhat disappointing senate record, but I am impressed by his earlier resume. So I'm willing to take a chance. Previously I was dead set against him but then I researched his history and decided to consider him. In his early political career he gained respect for his ability to bring disparate people together and to form coalitions. That alone has an appeal, the idea that he could get something done in this polarized nation. I did like the way he handled himself with the kneecapping attacks of Hillary and Bill. And I'm seriously disgusted with their playing the race card, it reminded me of the Willy Horton ads by Bush's daddy. It just made me think no trick is too low for them.

MikeBinSC, I haven't given up on Edwards, but it's not looking good.

amyeom, I like your characterization of Hillary. Fits.

kathyodat

I know many folks are all excited about the Obama performance, so it doesn't come easy making some sobering comments.

It ain't about "change", it ain't about "hope." That's the refuge of the armchair dissatisfied ones who don't really want to expend any effort or energy in examining what is happening and doing anything more than sticking your"vote" in a box every 2 or 4 years, thinking that THAT is enough, not even worrying that in the last two stolen elections NO ONE in the Democratic Party effectively did anything to remedy (or even denounce) those "minor" problems.

Hope without action and a plan...is USELESS delusion.

It's all so neat.

Just a month or two ago, some people were waking up to the fact that the Dems in Congress had betrayed the voters by doing nothing to end the war. Now all their efforts have gone into removing any antiwar candidates and rhetoric from the Primary Campaign.

Did you notice that with the help of a few media friends (DesMoines Register, NBC, CNN), those pesky "peace" voices disappeared before our very eyes even before we got to the part where most people vote? Isn't that neat?

And we borrow billions and put our grandkids in debt to send our young people to kill and die to "support democracy." What does it take to wake up to this little inconsistency?

Can you not see the Primary Reason for the Campaign?? To erase from you mind and the public narrative between now and November any inconvenient (to corporate America) words or thoughts about distractions such as torture, war, Katrina, mercenaries, spying, the tanking, dollar, loss of habeus corpus, North American Union, Katrina, impeachment, incredible debt, single-payer health insurance, Halliburton, Blackwater, rendition...did I mention Katrina and the refugees it has disenfranchised?

Nice 'n' quiet, now, repeat after me: it'll all be ok. I don't have to do anything and it will all be alright. There are no reasons to worry that our Constitution is becoming as Bush put it "...a goddamned piece of paper."

We been had.

Hillary, Obama,. Hillary, Obama, you're getting sleepy....

Does anyone know wher Obama stands on:
1) impeachment
2) torture
3) immigration
4) illegal spying (FISA)
5) illegality of the war and the 935 lies that came with it
6) granting telecommunications companies immunity for aiding in domestic spying
7) Diebold election fraud/fraud in Florida 2000,/fraud in Ohio 2004 etc.
8) The Israeli blockade against Gaza Strip and ongoing humanitarian catastrophe
9) Katrina
10) bush's attempt to circumvent congress and make a treaty with Iraq....

......just to name a few. Does he speak out on these issues? Please let me know. I guess I am not familiar with why Obama is a leader fit to be president if he doesn't speak out on controversial issues and skips important votes. Maybe I'm just ignorant and he has. Thanks.

The Karl Rove-Style 2008 strategy

The Karl Rove-Style 2008 strategy is obviously to plant stories in the gullible and whoring US media to create a sense of hostility between Obama and Clinton, so by the time of the actual election, the Democratic candidate will seem sullied and cheap in the eyes of the electorate, compared to the calm, clean-fighting elder Republican statesman, likely John McCain.

Don't fall for it!
Or else we'll have four more . . .

BeForKids, I'm not trying to burst your bubble or take anything away from Obama's victory here, but when you say, "but to pick up 25% of the white vote (albeit mostly young) in South Carolina opened my eyes", keep in mind, that you are talking about 25% of the "white Democratic Party" vote. That would not be reflective of the "white" vote of both parties in this state.

Give Edwards at least until after Super Tuesday -
It ain't over 'til it's over - John Edwards is not quiting on you,
DON'T QUIT ON JOHN EDWARDS or yourself!
Give yourself a chance to win -
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a World of Change!

change...is an entity i have seen too much of in this last nightmarish eight years.....the value of the dollar, the value of our ethics , the value of our constitution ,the value of life , too much unsavory change.change , is now a word that causes me to recoil..i don't trust the timber of it. i listen to the candidates , they mumble insanely and inanely.john mc cain's new commercial and i quote.."floridians are concerned about radical islamic terrorists." , i did not know floridians spent any of their time at all worrying about radical islamic terrorists,but now john mc cain tells me that we do..., stunning news to me.i am not sure what obama has been doing for the last 20 years or so , i must have been living under a rock, obama just seemed to be born one day , fully grown and there he was and he is also news to me.i am not sure what qualifies him to be looking out after all of us and our complex webs of artillery and deceptions. the only candidate on the democratic side that seems to be speaking english is hilliary.....obama says words , but they always leave me wondering 'what did he say?' and did it really mean anything ? i don't think so. i am a lifelong and ardent fan of john f. kennedy and obama is not one bit like him , when john f. kennedy said something , you understood and it was crystal clear .has obama been involved in civil rights issues as long as hilliary and bill ? ? i would like to know , because i only just learned of him very recently.

Right on, mastershake.

RSJ, I like your pragmatic viewpoint. I've never been one myself, but I can appreciate the value of getting things done.

xtine2, you're off the mark. Right wing Republicans think the rest of the oountry is as racist as they are, and I admit I thought there would be too many racists in this country to get Obama elected, but to pick up 25% of the white vote (albeit mostly young) in South Carolina opened my eyes. Maybe he could get elected. Maybe he will fight for us. He spent his entire career before going into politics fighting for the down and out, including police suspects being coerced into confessions. I for one think I am willing to take a chance, mostly because I'm starting to think we have nothing to lose. We're headed over a cliff, no one else is going to help us.

kathyodat

Interesting blog about Obama being exactly what conservatives are looking for in a Democratic candidate.

http://www.edstrong.blog-city.com/obama_the_white_mans_wet_dream.htm

colleen January 27th, 2008 9:06 pm

I'd say it's more like watching a Fortune Teller, or Palm Reader... As an observer, we see the fickle masses being tricked and swayed (again), and cheering loudly about it, yet can't talk sense into them.

Americans have poor memories, let alone poor attention spans.

God what a headache reading all these posts and no one really knows who to believe and whats true or not ture. Who to trust?

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

And the American public is being deceived and we know it.

This election is like reading a spy novel by John Le Carre or a murder mystery by PD James with a dash of the tv show Dallas

Cynthia McKinney 2008! How about it, she could be the first Woman, and the first Black person elected president. Not only that but I can vote for her without feeling like I've been swindled.

Please... Elect Obama. Or Hillary, it doesn't matter. No difference between the two, or from Republicans for that matter.

-And I will laugh and laugh when they keep 140,000+ troops in Iraq... Along with the 100,000+ Taxpayer funded mercenaries.

-Laugh when they make the Health Insurance and Health Care in this country worse when they force poor/lower class Americans into paying outrageous premiums, for profit Health Insurance - and call it "universal."

-Be laughing when they continue domestic spying, harassment and surveillance programs.

-Be laughing when they continue torture and inprisonment without charge or trial.

-Be laughing when they keep the nation dependent on Middle Eastern Oil, and Oil in general.

And the list goes on. And I will laugh especially when these voters loudly insist that things have "changed" when in fact their candidates have blatantly continued us down the same path, the corporate/financier for-profit path.

You'd think anyone would be better than Bush at this point. Curious why people can't bring themselves to admit that these candidates, Republican or Democrat (Maybe minus Edwards, and Ron Paul) are beholden to business, cooperate, and financial interests, not the interests of the middle class, and working classes.

That's what we as Americans ought to be most concerned with: the illusion of change, when in fact no change has occurred, and things have in fact gotten worse. Bush is content telling us he's ripping us off. Hillary and Obama, the only way they differ from Bush is they don't talk about how they're going to rip us off, they just pander to us with sound bites and punchlines that we want to here. "Change" "Change" "Change."

And Imagine it. By 2009, we're going to have pretty much the same Democratic make up of Congress as it is now. Maybe a +1 or +2 more Senators. But nothing significant. And we're going to most likely have a Democratic Administration. And all the issues mentioned above, along with many others won't change a bit. I can't wait to hear all of the excuses from the Democrats, not just the candidates, but especially the voters. Most of the Democrat voters of 2006 (and I was tricked into being one of them) are still making tons and tons of excuses, and so is Hillary or Obama.

That's one more thing to be concerned with. Just like Bush, neither Hillary nor Obama can bring themselves to take responsibility for anything. Two examples, (and there's plenty more) Hillary can't take responsibility for voting in favor of the war, and continuing to fund the war. Obama can't admit that he's done nothing and shown no Senate leadership whatsoever in opposing Bush's policies since 2004.

RSJ January 27th, 2008 6:26 pm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/dems-j16.shtml
The acrimonious dispute between the two Democratic frontrunners over their respective records on Iraq is, in the final analysis, only a political diversion from the fact that they—together with the political establishment as a whole—are in essential agreement on continuing Washington's colonial-style occupation of the oil-rich country indefinitely.

Obama, like Clinton, has repeatedly clarified that his call for withdrawing from Iraq does not include those forces being used to wage "counterterrorism" operations, i.e., the suppression of popular resistance to US occupation, the protection of US facilities in Iraq and the training of Iraqi forces—a prescription that would leave tens of thousands of American troops in the country indefinitely.

In a debate last September, Clinton, Obama and former senator John Edwards all refused to commit themselves to withdrawing all American forces from the occupied country by the beginning of their second term—in 2013. Edwards, in an evident attempt to reverse his fall in the polls, has since shifted his position, claiming earlier this month in an interview with the New York Times that he would withdraw all US troops from Iraq within his first year of taking office. Even then, he added, "We obviously would keep troops there to protect the embassy in addition to the quick reaction forces."

You're kidding, Xtine2 -- this is an opinion column by Rove that opens with the line: "Not that you have asked for advice, but here it is anyway:"

If Jeb Bush endorses Obama next week, are you going to then conclude: "Aha, he must be a Republican if Jeb likes him?"

Did it ever occur to you that Rove is publicly 'giving advice' to Obama in an effort to get people to conclude the GOP must want to run against him? Did that thought ever cross your mind? Read the polls: Hillary has much higher negatives than Obama. Rove has played this doublethink game in the past, and he's playing it again -- pretend to like the candidate you most fear so that the one you WANT to run against gets the nomination. Stop being naive and taking what Karl Rove writes in a column as truthful. As you say, things aren't always as they seem in the media, and particularly in anything Rove writes.

Thank You, LORD!!!

Please save us from this deceitful snake of a woman who always votes republican, yet runs on a democratic ticket!

Please tell me -

If Obama is the great hope, why is Karl Rove giving him advice on how to win the primaries???

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dee0a6e8-a109-11dc-9f34-0000779fd2ac.html

RSJ: Wake up and smell the coffee!
Things aren't always as they are portrayed in the media..

Please tell me -

If Obama is the great hope, why is Karl Rove giving him advice on how to win the primaries???

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dee0a6e8-a109-11dc-9f34-0000779fd2ac.html

RSJ: Wake up and smell the coffee?
Things aren't always as they are portrayed in the media..

WhatToDo wrote: "... 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?"

As far as these charges that Obama wants to increase military spending, that's true -- he wants to provide higher salaries and better housing and benefits for the military, and repair the broken VA medical system. He wants to keep the promises to vets to which Bush only pays lip service. And he would like to expand enlistment so that the overstressed, overdeployed troops currently serving can get a break. What a horrible man! Reasonable grown-ups sometimes have to compromise and negotiate to get things done -- only the wingnut neocons insist it always has to be 'my way or the highway,' which is how we ended up in the mess we're in. On the viability of a third party, read on.

Vaudree wrote: "'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."

Vaudree, I usually agree with your comments, but not this one. Edwards can't win the nomination without delegates, and coming in third in every primary means he won't have enough delegates to defeat either Hillary or Obama -- if he can't win in his own home state of South Carolina, where can he come in first? I don't see any Super Tuesday state where he can win -- do you? Realistically, the best he can hope for at this point is to bargain for the Veep slot -- Obama/Edwards wouldn't be a bad ticket, even if not perfect.

Kelmer wrote: "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."

The economy is collapsing and keep in mind that FDR wasn't considered all that liberal when he was elected in 1932 -- he evolved into a stronger progressive president in the succeeding years. Since I know some of Obama's relatives and talked to him both before he ran for office and after he was elected to the Senate, I can tell you he is a progressive a heart, but he's also a smart politician, smart enough to realize you have to get elected to get anything done. BTW, he did go out on a limb making his anti-Iraq War speech in 2002; many Illinois Dems avoided that anti-Iraq War rally like the plague, worried it would brand them as 'unpatriotic' and disturb their political careers. It showed courage for Obama to step up and make that speech against a then-popular president and his centerpiece war, something that's forgotten these days when Bush's popularity has plunged, along with support for his Iraq debacle.

I also have questioned some of Obama's past votes, such as the one for Condi Rice as Sec. of State, and some of the votes he didn't cast, but then I don't expect to agree with any candidate completely, even third party candidates. If you're waiting for Buddha, Moses or Jesus to run, it's not going to happen, and they couldn't get elected anyway, not in America circa 2008. (Can you imagine any modern US politician campaigning on a platform of "Know thyself," "Thou shalt not kill," or "Forgive your enemies"? Kucinich was laughed at just for proposing a Department of Peace.)

I think either Robert Redford or Paul Newman would be a great third party presidential candidate -- but they, along with a lot of good people, aren't running.

As I've said before, if any of you can provide me with a virtually flawless viable third-party candidate who can defeat the GOP in 2008, I'll vote for her or him.

Absent of that, I'll go with the Dem who most closely believes in what I believe, has been a proven progressive in the past, and has the best chance of actually being elected. At the moment, that's Barack Obama.

Xtine2 wrote: "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..)"

That's what some said when Obama entered this race -- "He'll get slaughtered in lily-white Iowa"; "He's doomed in New Hampshire"; "Edwards and Clinton will cream him in South Carolina." This is 2008, not 1968, and the nation has changed. In 1980, I was told that a divorced man could never get elected president in this country; in 1992, I heard that a little-known Governor from Arkansas didn't have a chance against the well-oiled, well-financed Bush Machine; in 2006, the experts said the Dems didn't have a chance of making substantial gains in the House or Senate, and on it goes. Wake up Xtine2: It's doesn't really matter what the white racists of the GOP base think anymore -- they amount to only about 20 percent of the vote, and even they can't agree on a candidate.

Xtine2 also wrote: 'HILLARY IS NOT BILL.so why bring up his record of mistakes during her campaign??"

Because part of the ready-for-office experience she's claiming is as First Lady, and she has defended Bill's actions as president. He also, you might notice, has been very publicly campaigning for her.

Then there's this reminder I've posted before: I have been assured by people I trust that the RNC is running an Internet campaign on threads such as this one to siphon off liberal voters into a third party or convince them not to vote at all. Doesn't matter to them -- either way it benefits the GOP. I'm not accusing anyone specifically on this thread, but you'd have to be 'brain dead' not to take that underhanded tactic into account by the party of Rove in what is shaping up to be one of the nastiest elections in living memory.

BTW, Mary Lou, Obama and Edwards were not listed on the ballot in Michigan, and write-in votes didn't count. Only Clinton, Kucinich and Gravel were listed: Not too hard to get a landslide under those conditions, although I agree that both Florida and Michigan should have their delegates seated at the national convention.

LOL, good point, Winnetou.

MikeBinSC, I'm sorry, but it seems to me that Edwards' goose is cooked by coming in third in SC, although I think he would have been a good candidate had he prevailed and nabbed the nomination.

The real question is...

Why don't the Republicans ever attack Obama?

They seem much more threatened by Hillary, in general
....even when Obama has won some races..

What do they know, that we don't???

Is it that he can't win?
...can he bought?

Why are they willing for an African American liberal to ascend to the most powerful position in the world?

It just doesn't add up...

Re my post above at 5:14, sorry about the "Cold Test" link. I'll try one more time.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/01/27/030127fa_fact

Sure, I'll vote for him if gets the nomination. It's a little worrisome when you think about Ark, Tenn, Dakotas and the like; but he oughta get CA. If HC was that much less progressive she fooled me. Maybe I got fooled.

Dennis must have had a reason out there in Iowa.

The past couple days I've been going over the banksters, the thwarted spy ring probe, and last but not least
how North Korea got to slide (Hersh's "Cold Test" article) back in the day. Hope Obama has something to say soon about all this.

If John Edwards does not get the Democratic nomination I am definitely voting Green! I won't vote for Billary and I just do not trust Obama.

BeForKids

nailed it. i think at some point we reach this point where we're more afraid of what we know than what we don't know. i say we roll the dice.

I just watched his victory speech. What did the man say? He offered a lot of platitudes. I saw the signs with the word "change" in big block letters, but he's not offering anything in the way of change. It was all polished talk. Since Kucinich dropped out, I've been singin' the blues.

Liberal with An Attitude: You're not a liberal if you categorize and marginalize people who think differently than yourself and the dominant ideology. You're nothing more than a MSM thrawl whose been brainwashed into thinking that people who stand up for what they believe in are somehow "extreme." Please do not generalize the people on this blog the way the MSM has programed the public. You sully the word "liberal."

Kloro, Edwards should be your choice, not Kucinich. Kucinich is done, and Edwards has just begun! With support, Edwards can win this thing. Email Kucinich and
TELL HIM TO ENDORSE EDWARDS NOW!

It ain't over 'til it's over - John Edwards is not quiting on you,
DON'T QUIT ON JOHN EDWARDS or yourself!
Give yourself a chance to win -
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a World of Change!

this guy's a power freak, who wants to massively increase the military and maintain the military occupation of the ME. read his own words:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p40/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

email Kucinich and ask him to stand as a write-in candidate. we need to hang a sword over the necks of Obama and Clinton.

reply@kucinichforcongress.com

If there had not been a viable black candidate in the race, I am certain that we would be talking about the EDWARDS landslide victory over Hillary, especially with the Martin Luther King III endorsement of the Edwards campaign. Remember, Edwards won the primary here in 2004 over all the Democratic candidates, including Kerry.

They DO like John Edwards, they just like Obama more, just as they liked Jesse Jackson more than Al Gore!

Why don't blacks from Edwards' home state seem to like him all that much?

JOHN EDWARDS IS STILL VERY MUCH IN THIS RACE!

The most important and relative information in this article came in the last few statements -

"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."

I live in SC, and I understood how incredibly difficult it was going to be for John Edwards to win or even do well here this year. But, he DID do well, getting nearly 1 of every 5 votes cast here yesyerday, and his votes DID NOT come from potential Hillary voters. Many Obama voters would have been Edwards voters if Obama had not been in the race.

In evaluating the Edwards performance in this primary, you must put the appropriate weight on the demographics of the voters here in South Carolina. While I like Jesse Jackson, I think most people would agree that he, Jesse, as a "black" candidate for president, is much more divisive and much less electable on a national stage, than is Barack Obama.

Now, when I make that statement I'm not talking about the "black vote", as both Jesse and Barack have shown their ability to garner their support, I'm talking about the non-prejudiced or marginally-prejudiced "white voters" who would find it easier to vote for Barack than Jesse, and I'm sorry to say it, but I know many prejudiced white voters who would never vote for either of them, strictly based on racial bigotry.

The bottom line to all this is that Edwards remains a very viable candidate in this race, and should not be abandoned by his progressive supporters, and surely not until after the "Super Tuesday" primary results are entered into the history books. Kucinich has dropped out of the race! He says that he is not endorsing anyone, but he needs to endorse John Edwards, and he needs to do it NOW, while it can still make a difference! If you were a Kucinich supporter, email him and
TELL HIM TO ENDORSE EDWARDS NOW!

It ain't over 'til it's over - John Edwards is not quiting on you,
DON'T QUIT ON JOHN EDWARDS or yourself!
Give yourself a chance to win -
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a World of Change!

By the way, don't worry about the Republicans: They will beat themselves because of their stupidity.

The good thing if Obama would win the presidency is that all people who do not like to live under a black president would want to emigrate and these are exactly the sort of people that you would not want in your country anyway.
It happened here in South Africa and the country is a better country for it now (I think many a part of the old 'racists' here actually went to America, so maybe they will come back now).
Problem is they have nowhere to go any more. Maybe we can send them on the first one-way commercial trip to Mars.

What I see in this campaign is that Hillary is unscrupulous and vicious and for her, like the current regime, it's about politics, not principles and policies.

Obama seems to me to be holding his cards close to the chest, playing a safe strategy. So I look at his pre-presidential run history. Community activist lawyer (obviously not in for the big bucks), and as an Illinois state senator, he managed to broker a deal to get a law passed videotaping police interrogations and confessions, and persuaded a reluctant governor to sign it. He overcame considerable resistance from the police departments and district attorneys, particularly on the interrogations part, but held fast on that and won their agreement at last. It took considerable skill and talent to get everyone on board and get it through the legislature and signed. That impressed me, having some familiarity with police department attitudes about sovereignty. What I see right now is that he excites and energizes young people who for a couple of generations have been disillusioned and cynical and politically apathetic. He also did not stoop to the low down and dirty fighting level of Hillary and Bill but did stand up for himself. Their attempt to inflame racial tensions was really disgusting, they clearly don't care how much damage they inflict in an effort to win. I don't get that impression from him.

I suspect Obama is more progressive than he is willing to reveal at this time, being that he would be disappeared like a Kucinich or Edwards if he did. I could be wrong. JFK also played a careful game, but when he came out with canceling the Federal Reserve Board, he was dead in two months. Jimmy Carter had a good heart, but he was inept as president, over his head. Since JFK we haven't had a single president who truly had our interests at heart and could energize the public to get behind him. Obama reminds me of JFK more than any other person I've seen. Yes, he's been bankrolled, we wouldn't even know who he was if he wasn't. The question is, where are his loyalties? We really don't know. He's not saying. Is he worth taking a chance on? The Republicans can't wait to have him as their opponent, being the racists they are. Meanwhile, we can look at the histories of the rest of the field and know exactly what to expect from them, more of the same.

kathyodat

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

~ Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr

While I am happy to see Billary get a run for their money, I wish it were from some one who had a snowballs chance in hell of winning the general election. I also wish it were someone who was not such an obvious sell out. The fact that so many, including people I know and respect, refuse to see who he really is, just another American politician, in bed with the AIPAC, in bed with the corporate masters, but worst of all at his core he seem to be to be a snake oil salesman.

Oh well, national politics aside, I can still work on real issues in my local area, and hope for the best.

Direct Democracy: Yes, "There is a difference between right and left wing libertarians," but the differences you mention are only half right. Right-wing libertarians (though Ron Paul is not a good example of this) do tend towards fascism -- but to me, left-wing libertarians celebrate a libertinism that would be very familiar to the Romans during the Decline and Fall.

Anyway, I was desperately hoping that John Edwards would pull off a surprise win in S.C. but now I tend to agree with the posts here, suggesting we try for an Obama/Edwards ticket (or Obama/Richardson).

What's our worst nightmare? Another Republican! Their debates are nauseating: constant militaristic posturing, and McCain's characterization of proposed troop withdrawals from Iraq as "waving the white flag of surrender!" Also, in terms of bettering the lives of ordinary Americans, the GOP is still selling the snake oil of trickle-down prosperity. So, shall we vote for Hillary or Obama?

One factor not mentioned yet on CD -- particularly if McCain wins the GOP spot (but even if Romney does) -- is the subliminal effect of looking at the two candidates at side-by-side lecterns in the Dem/Gop debates. Romney's little poke at Hillary the other night ("General Hillary Clinton") made me cringe. I'm not a fan of hers, but I could see where the GOP candidate could go with this: Make her look ridiculous as Commander-in-Chief and raise a huge spectre of doubt about a woman in that role. (This would be particularly true if America suffers another attack before the election.)

Even though electing an African American to the presidency is really more radical than electing a woman, I don't believe anyone would even try to mock Barack Obama in that way -- simply because he's a man.

Readers who disagree, would you please post on this point? I'm trying to figure out what to do, now that it's clear we've lost Edwards. (I guess I should mention here that I am "white," as Americans insist on calling us folks of European extraction, but I would unhesitatingly vote for Obama without regard to his race.)

Folks, Obama and Clinton received the most corporate campaign dollars on the Dem side. Do you really believe that money doesn't matter, and that they will carry out a "Democratic" agenda, representing the people's interests?

Their records suck. Thanks to those who still bring up the details. So, why are there still people here talking about Obama as the candidate of hope and Clinton as the candidate of experience, echoing the PR?

The truth is, you're screwed. The Dems don't represent you now, and they won't in the future if elected. The Repugs are witless abominations, but at least they are upfront about being murderous corporate shills. Honestly, please don't vote for either the Dem or Repug Party.

Put down your pom poms and pick up a book. Talk to your neighbors.

There may come a day, as the economy goes from bad to worse, that we'll all be picking up something else: pitchforks and staves.

It takes a village ....

RE: - I would like to suggest another reason why Obama is not as popular among us older folks. Political litteracy.

Are you saying that your reluctance to vote for Obama has more to do with living through the Brian Mulroney-Ronald Reagan Era than race?

Personally, I think that, if Obama is chosen as the Democratic representative that he can get in. Even a hamster running against a Dem would win just because of the anti-Bush backlash.

I just think that Obama and Hillary are too close to being McCain.

Unlike Edwards, though, I think Romney is going to get it for the other side.

Presidents are judge on how well they are thought of after they leave office, though, and by whom.

It is incredible , given the extrme right wing nature of our current reality, that Obama NEVER seems to be on the attack against Bush-DLC Corporate America.

He ALWAYS seems to be courting THE MEDIA LABLED "CENTRE" WHICH REALLY MEANS ACCEPTING THE TENANTS OF BUSH EXTRMISM WITH MAYBE MORE ARMOR FOR THE TANKS.

And yet people seem amazed when political litterates ask "how in the world will Obama CHANGE anything.

Yes I am a white male, 44. People who are younger than me and Obama supporters are probably filing away my steep reservations about Obama the Pakistan Hawk under the race file.

This is so readily available.

I would like to suggest another reason why Obama is not as popular among us older folks. Political litteracy. We have simply heard a lot more Campaign consultant speak than this sleepy and DEEPLY APOLITICAL generation. Their support for Obamba reminds me of what the Rehabbing Political Scientis Carl Boggs called "anti-politics": by this he meant that desire among those who dont follow politics too closely for the pols "to just shut up and stop bickering".

Unfortunately there has been TOO MUCH BIPARTISANSHIP IN DC ON THE BIG ISSUES. The noisy division has been mostly over cultural crap that provide cover for the DLC Bendovercrats.

We have been through several rounds of Murtha decoy psy-ops, and we will not fall for that "would if we could" crap anymore.

No wonder the Corporate Media have elevated race and gender to Novembers Spotlight. It is the only way the Corporate Democrats could possibly SEEM different from their so-called opposites.

RE: - Who on this forum has experienced RACISM and SEXISM? / I have experienced both.

Why do I think of Moonraven at this moment.

Trying having a birthmark which covers 1/8th of one's face. I noticed a marked greater positive response from people once I got most of it removed.

Try being allergic to airfreshioner - even the sniff-housers (who are the real drug abusers) look at you as a rubbie when you get sick in their presence - as if they had nothing what-so-ever to do with it.

Sniff-houser=one who uses air-freshioner, air-freshioner laced cleaner or air-freshioner laced personal care products. Users of Axe or Tag are sniff-houser - people who insist on turning themselves into walking sniff houses.

Everyone has the experience of being judged unfairly for unfair reasons, though, I concede, as a Black Woman, you have probably experienced it more than most.

For this reason, it is not just important to have someone who can become President but, if the person is different cosmetically than most who have traditionally held the job, that person will have to be twice as good to be seen as half as good.

All three of the leading Dem candidates running are cosmetically different than those who usually hold the office - the white woman, the black man, and the anti-lobbyist - there are those who will want to prove that each was a failed mistake. So being able to get into office isn't where the real battle is - it is being treated like an experiment afterwards. I don't want there to be a footnote saying "we tried that and it didn't work."

If you get the wrong Black President in the White House, you won't see another one for three decades.

RE: - HILLARY IS NOT BILL…so why bring up his record of mistakes during her campaign?? / She has always been more liberal than her husband.

Hillary Clinton also sees imaginary people crossing borders and can tell you exactly where these non-existent entities crossed from Canada into the US. That is the same kind of bullshit we are trying to impeach Cheney on. The only difference is that Hillary Clinton did so because she wanted to be with the popular crowd and Cheney to get his way.

I don't know who the popular crowd is but they are not the ordinary working stiffs trying to etch out a life and provide for their children.

xtine--"She has always been more liberal than her husband.."

Id like to try what you are smoking. Id like to drift away from reality too !! If the Clintons are liberal then so is Cheney. Their politics are identical.

I think whoever is President will do a fine job.

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?"

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

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.

--"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!"

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.

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!!

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

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.

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]. :)

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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'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.

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!

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?

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.

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....

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."

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.