Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBarack Obama won a landslide victory in South Carolina last night, gaining valuable momentum ahead of the Democrats' multi-state contest on February 5.
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.
John Edwards came in a distant third in his home state, on 18%, frustrating his hopes of making a comeback ahead of Super Tuesday.
At a raucous victory party in Columbia, Obama told supporters that the results proved his first victory in Iowa was no fluke.
"Tonight the cynics who believe that what began in the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good people of South Carolina," he said. "We have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we've seen in a long, long time."
Obama's candidacy received an additional validation with an endorsement from Caroline Kennedy, the only surviving child of the late John F Kennedy.
"Over the years, I've been deeply moved by the people who've told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president," she wrote in an opinion piece for Sunday's New York Times. "This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting ... Barack Obama."
But despite the jubilant crowds at his victory party, Obama was still visibly angry over his battering by Bill and Hillary Clinton in a negative and divisive campaign that sought to marginalise him as an African-American candidate.
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.
The negative campaign also backfired against the Clintons by alienating African American women. They supported Obama.
Even so, Clinton, though a distant loser, attracted a wider coalition than Obama. "It's wonderful to have such a broad cross-section of people across this state," she told supporters in Nashville.
Adopting an upbeat manner, she looked ahead to the Super Tuesday contests and tried to shrug off the negative and divisive campaign she left behind.
Her husband, who was an equal partner in the negative campaigning against Obama, sounded a more combative note.
"He won fair and square," Bill Clinton told a rally in Independence, Missouri. "Now we go to February 5 when millions of Americans finally get into the act."
Edwards, despite his distance third place showing - and a near total rejection by African-American voters - vowed to fight on. "Now the three of us move on to February 5," he said. However, it seems even less likely now that his cash-strapped campaign can make an impact on the more than 20 different battleground states
While Clinton remains the favourite to come out on top on February 5, when 22 states are up for grabs, the win in South Carolina could help Obama narrow the poll gap. He now goes into contests in Georgia and Alabama with a demonstrated advantage.
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.
However, Clinton remains weakened by her failure to win over African American women. She also performed poorly among white male voters.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
106 Comments so far
Show AllRay 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....
"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...
"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.htm...
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.
@MikeBinSCÂ 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/rene...
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 p