Obama, Edwards, and Clinton failed to address censorship of the debates by the tv coporations. A major First Amendment trampling that they ignored because it was in their favor. Caroline chose to ignore it, too. Cynthia McKinney never didn't look good.

"The fact is, we don't know much about Obama. I'll say one thing, if he's as good a man as he comes across in his speeches, he is a hell of a good man, a Statesman. We'll see as time goes by. There will be tons of dirt thrown, we'll have to determine if any is credible dirt. We may be very surprised."

Amen! This was my reason, in fact, for supporting Hillary. We *do* know about the skeletons in her closet. And she has come to terms with them..... Obama is a wild card. And one the Repugs would love to unmask.

As for the generational divide. In the words of my 25 year old son.... "young people turn out for rallies. They are like parties. But, they don't necessary turn out at the polls. Those are too much like school." Think about it.

RE: - the VP candidate is chosen by the nominee/the victor of the party.

That is what I figured originally - that the presidential candidate would choose his or her running mate.

RE: - 7 of the last 18 Vp's have ascended to the presidency (1901-2008)

Henry Champ said that this was an unusual Presidential race since no Vice President was running to represent his/her party's choice of Presidential hopeful. I also noticed that Papa Bush was Reagan's VP.

In Canada, being Finance Minister ups your chances of being Prime Minister. Instead of Secretaries we have Ministers and the Prime Minister and his/her cabinet are all made up of MPs (one one exception in living history).

MP=Congressperson

RE: - the VP oversees the US senate and votes during ties, otherwise few proscribed duties.

So it was in the Senate that Cheney told somebody to go "f" himself! That is different than here. In Canada, it is the Speaker who votes only to break a tie.

Then again, our senate (which, is based loosely on the British House of Lords) has basically become a retirement home for old politicians. The NDP want to abolish it.

Seems that, in the US, being a Senator is more prestigious than being a Congressperson whereas here being an MP is much more prestigious than being a Senator.

RE: - it's interesting that b clinton could subvert the intent of the 22nd amendment by running as hillary's VP (similar to Putin circumventing term limits in russia by redefining the defintion of prime minister and president)

It is a bit different - to compare this possibility to what Putin did, then being VP would have to become more important than being President. Seems that there is nothing stopping a former President from being a Vice President.

RE: - actually i was referring to h clintons association with wal-mart when she sat on their board of directors

Wal-Mart - they do get around don't they! You know when the Three Amigos and 30 CEOs met for that SPP meeting in Montebello? I think that Wal-Mart was one of the 30 CEOs. The SPP has been described as NAFTA on steroids, though it seems to be a thinktank as to how to word laws so that they are regulations (which don't have to go through the House) rather than legislations (which do).

You tell me about the reports coming out on Jan 31rst when you see my name again.
Question Period was interesting. There are interesting things concerning Chalk River coming out, discussion of the effect of the American recession on the Canadian economy and it seems that it was the Vandoos who decided not to hand over their prisoners to Afghan authorities due to allegations of torture and that the government wasn't in on the decision.

On cpac.ca tomorrow: Tuesday, January 29 at 1AM ET / Monday, January 28 at 10PM PT

House of Commons Committee on Natural Resources
Members convened on January 16 to discuss nuclear safety issues, including safety issues at the Chalk River nuclear reactor in Ontario. The reactor was shut down in November due to safety concerns. Parliament passed emergency legislation in December to put an end to the medical isotope shortage by allowing Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) to resume and continue the operation of the reactor.
Members heard from Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn on his handling of the issue. Opposition MPs have called for Minister Lunn's resignation over his failure to act sooner on warnings that AECL wasn't meeting safety requirements.
The committee was supposed to hear from Linda Keen following Minister Lunn's appearance, but her appearance was cancelled at the last minute. Keen was fired from her position as president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in the late hours of January 15th. The federal government has accused Keen of putting the lives of Canadians at risk with her decision to shut down the reactor.

Thursday on cpac.ca we will have Karlheinz Schreiber spill a few more of his secrets. Maybe we will learn some of the corporate smooching behind NAFTA.

DON'T GIVE UP ON EDWARDS!

.

I'll say it again...

http://www.ontheissues.org/ Ralph...Ralph_Nader.htm

We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now.

.

Let's see....

JFK: Laos and Vietnam offensives, Bay of Pigs.

Obama: Expand military, possibly invade Pakistan.

Where can I sign up?

Cynthia McKinney is looking better all the time.

I read about the first 20 comments or so and decided that most of those making anti Obama comments had not spend much time at his official website or had'nt read his positions on matters of foreign policy and Iraq. I wish you would before you claim Barack thinks a policy of preemtive attacks is good or that he plans on staying in Iraq. And read his position paper/plan on energy and environment. Where's the reference to nuke power? I'm not sure there is 'clean' coal technology which he talks about but I missed any reference to nukes, if it is there. I'm as cynical and fed up as the next person - voted for Nader and did not care what it meant except it felt good. I'm really pissed about what happened to Kucinich and until I heard Kennedy's and Obama's speaches today, I was thinking again that I'd stay away from the favorites. But I'm beginnig to be optimistic again - we need some of that. By the way, I suggest we make contributions to the Edwards campaign, however small or large they may be so he can stay in the race and force Obama and Clinton to keep social issues on the front burner. Keep them honest so to speak.
Cheers and Peace

RE: - actually edwards has an amicable relationship with clinton

There is a difference between liking a person and trusting a person (ask any pregnant teen who found that out the hard way). Those robocalls in South Carolina stung, though concede that I don't think Edwards actually hates her for it. Edwards needs a VP who won't undermine him, but strikes me as one who lets the people around him shine.

How many former Vice Presidents become President BTW.

RE: - pardon did you say obama was a corporate whore? the clintons manifest the definition of corporate whore

Yeah, but I also said "There is nothing wrong with being an intelligent competent woman - though there is something gravely wrong with being a corporate shrill who plays dirty. (bottom post)"

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/27/6650/

I think I let Obama off easy compared to Clinton.

Carolyn is going to think her father was the greatest person in the world. Is she one of those who thinks that tax cuts benefit minimum wage earners?

Edited to add: Oops! That was supposed to be "shill" not "shrill".

Caroline wasn't your dad that guy that got my buddies killed for the continued Western Colonialism in VietNam? How many dead under his watch? Now it is a tourist Mecca and gets most favored trade status. lf you're telling me Obama's going to do in lraq what your dad did, l might as well vote for McCain at least he is honest enough to say stay the course for the next hundred years. God save us all.

vaudree January 28th, 2008 1:56 pm

"Edwards may accept Obama as VP but I doubt that he trusts Clinton enough to have her so close to the inner circle."

--- actually edwards has an amicable relationship with clinton (pardon did you say obama was a corporate whore? the clintons manifest the definition of corporate whore)

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080124_message_from_third_place/
Eugene Robinson 1/24/08

"For a while, it looked as if his strategy was to team up with Obama to knock Clinton off her stride. But in the last debate, he joined Clinton against Obama—and then met privately with Clinton afterwards.
I asked him what they had discussed. "We talked about how the media isn't giving me enough coverage," he said with a smile."

also refer to amy goodman's interview with dennis kucinich about the vegas debate. kucinich notes obama issued a statement about his exclusion from the dabate, clinton and edwards were silent (it was an MNBC hit job).

----both p leahy and e kennedy voted against the war, i trust their judgement, especially leahy; their endorsements at this point in the contest are more than an endorsement of obama; their comments also are a renunciation of clinton (sanctions, personality interferring with policy ). i realize the clintons were demonized by crazy right wing fundamentalists, but their political instincts and and didactic responses (i did not have sexual relations with that woman) to pretty straight forward questions (did have you have sex with this woman) is trully amazing (and ya know when bill runs a campaign (in SC) on behalf of hillary, hillary assumes bill's baggage).

obama is the firewall. is he perfect ? no, but of the 8 people who probably will be elected president in november who's perfect(4 repubs mccain, romney, guiliani, huckabee / 3 dems clinton, obama, edwards)? i believe based on his biography and his voting record he's the best choice.

About voting records, not surprisingly the candidates votes in the US senate are similar. both clinton and obama represent 'liberal' urban centers that enables these candidates to vote left of center . edwards voting was less sterling in the senate and this was partially attributed to his conservative constituency which elected a republican in his place r burr, when he left the senate.

if you're really interested in voting records examine them, you'll find that c kennedy is correct.

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

edwards rhetoric (despite the fact many critisize obama as being shallow because of his oratory) doesn't match his voting record, in fact it's more incredulous to imagine a wealthy nouveau bourgeoisie who had a moderate/center voting record in the senate (as was noted by russ feinstein earlier at an essay on these pages) spewing populist rhetoric. His life experiences (as an adult) and his voting record do not match the rhetoric. But why the rhetoric? Maybe he really believes the critique, of using class inequities as template when looking for solutions to societies ailments (i do as well, thats why i initially supported kucinich). these articles are about dems and they all will have a voice when the dems craft their party platform(kennedy, clinton, edwards, kucinich, obama) it's funny edwards thought the other 80% of the dem party would adopt populist rhetoric during a contested election. all the candidates will take money form the DNC. who can win??

also clinton's comment about jackson winning in SC twice in reference to obama. i guess all blacks just vote on racial lines. nice.

vote your conscience, but if your preferred candidate (edwards) does not have the delegates to secure the nomination, contact him and encourage edwards to pledge his delegates to obama. see you in the streets of denver........

Yes, Obama's oratory is lofty and uplifting but like many here are saying, where is the meat and potatoes?

I'm afraid many whites feel a sense of relief that there really is a black man who looks and sounds good enough to vote for president. He sounds presidential (and does not have the Jesse Jackson enunciation.) To vote for a black man will collectively assuage the consciences of white liberals. It's a feel good vote and a "that will show those racist bastards."

I, too, have thought how wonderful it would be for the most powerful person in the world to be a black man. About time, I've thought. But one should vote objectively: what are the issues? what does he stand for? what is he saying? what will he do? will he stand up and fight?

As a feminist, I have similar feelings towards Clinton. Finally, at last, a woman leader! She is tough but in what direction will her fierceness be directed?

Edwards is the most specific regarding issues.

But it's not really a democracy when Kucinich is denied an opportunity to debate on MSM and money can buy presidencies.

I can't vote of course, as I'm not American but will be watching with great interest and trepidation as the machinations of MSM mould the minds of the public and spin and mangle the truth destroying everyone who might be a threat to corporate America.

It would actually be fun and intriguing to watch from the sidelines as things unfold if US wasn't such a powerful force in the world. It's just plain scary, though.

Williameon, like your poem.

RE: - Why is it, when I offer a mundane opinion, you almost always want to tell me I'm wrong?

Why do you always assume that I am saying that when I rarely do. OK, I guess I am here because you are wrong in saying that I always say that you are wrong.

RE: - VAUDREE~ Evidently you don't know how politics works here in America. The one selected by a party chooses a running mate, not a person to be the president, but one who is deemed most desirable to garner votes, __ it's called a slate. Would Edwards wish to fill that role?

You are right that I don't know how running mates are chosen, but I presume that we both agree that a person can refuse to be a running-mate. I am presuming (maybe wrongly) that a Presidential candidate can veto a VP choice?

Edwards is in a tricky position if he does accept an invitation to be Clinton's or Obama's running mate and they pick Secretaries and advisors who are part of the corporate lobby. Thus, if it comes to that, I think he will refuse or demand certain prerequisites.

I think that there is too much bad blood among both Clinton and Obama right now that neither would want the other as a running mate. Clinton may wish to be Obama's VP but I don't think he trust her and Obama would definitely not choose Clinton.

Edwards may accept Obama as VP but I doubt that he trusts Clinton enough to have her so close to the inner circle. Obama as VP would give Obama a chance to choose between his conscience and the corporate lobby when he makes his next run in 8 years. Edwards will have 8 years to get the majority of smooch money out of politics so that the next President will not have to choose between what one believes in and power (or feel that one has to make such a choice).

Obama would also be subjected to Edwards moral example for eight years and might then become the kind of President which would make both John Edwards and Martin Luther King proud. If Obama gets in right now, he will just be another corporate whore.

RE: - I tend to agree with your last post, except you claim Obama has no skeletons in his closet. __ Really?

I wouldn't hold being related to Dick Cheney against him. The leader of the NDP's father was in Mulroney's cabinet and I don't hold it against Jack Layton - whose party I plan to vote for in the next election - he is right and his father was wrong. ;)

Seriously, I don't know what skeletons Obama would have in his closet. The only guess I have is that it has to do with who is funding his campaign.

And, to be purposely obnoxious for a moment, if Jack Layton becomes Prime Minister, Olivia Chow won't be "First Lady" though she would probably make a good Cabinet Minister.

RE: - I must ask, exactly what on earth makes any one of you think that our votes matter?

If they are trying so hard to prevent you from doing something, maybe it is because they fear you doing it!

RE: - My thanks to Caroline Kennedy. I think she is right about what the country needs,

Carolyn would have more credibility if she did not dismiss the need to focus on the issues. She basically told us not to worry our pretty little heads about the issue because Obama, Clinton and Edwards have the same policies any way. If you actually believe that, I will sell you a share in Bre-X!

RE: - A brave woman who lost her father in a terrible moment we all still wish did not happen puts herself in the public eye in behalf of her father's legacy, and she is greeted by scorn?

Saddam Hussain had a daughter. Ok, he was a nasty piece of work and JFK was a half-decent person - but still both lost a father! If one is brave then the other is as well! What issues and policies are important to Carolyn. What we know is that she likes inspirational and hates dirty tricks, but what is her stand on rendition or health care or getting the corporate lobby out of Washington?

RE: - Some "white supremist" idiot will assassinate Obama (Just like JFK) and the vice president will immediately escalate all the conflict.

Only Hillary Clinton if someone gives her too many twinkies. We heard all about the "Twinkie defense" when Glen Murray became the second Gay Mayor in North America - presumably, George Moscone was the first (though Wikipedia refutes that).

RE: - "If you don't agree with us, you're a non-believer!" The arguments are never about his policies - notice that? They also sound a lot like people who for so long, were violently angry at criticism of Bush when he made content-empty speeches about his brand of "patriotism." Then, as now, the argument was "don't expect more of him or criticize him, he's making us feel good!"

That is nasty, but so true. Only it is the "if you don't vote Obama then you are a disciple of David Duke" mantra.

QUESTION PERIOD STARTS IN UNDER 10 MINUTES - live on cpac.ca

With respect to Caroline Kennedy, why is it that we always hear how "inspirational" her late father was, and never hear about his accomplishments in public office. Were there any? I hardly count the Bay of Pigs as a hallmark of statesmanship. President Kennedy surrounded himself with "the best and the brightest," a phrase which has come to mean a bunch of Ivy Leaguers with no common sense whatsoever (and most of whom were born to comfort, if not wealth)._________________________________________

Please read some different views of Kennedy. The Kennedy bashers have presented a distorted picture/ please see my comments above

A tremendous number of these people use Richard Helms CIA mouthpiece liar Sam Halpern as their source. Please look up Helms and Halpern on the Spartacus/Education Forum site, which is the best site in the history of human consciousness. Each thread has excerpts from many different sources. Kennedy Bashers like Joan Mellen-- who nevertheless has made very important contribtions to understanding the historical conspiracy behind the JFK assassination-- are free to respond, and boy do they! Also be sure to take note of Harvard Universitys March 2008 publication of David Kaiser's pro-conspiracy arguement in The Road From Dallas.

Also discoforting to the encantors of "flying saucer, conspiracy theory" whenever the JFK assassination is mentioned, will be the new Jefferson Morley book Our Man in Mexico.

It is time for those on the Left to shake off their Encounter magazine-like implanted aversion for JFK studies. IT HAS ALMOST NOTHING TO DO WITH JFK HIMSELF. Rather it is the strands of cold war history that run through it. These are the strands that have knitted our world.

walt - I appreciated your analysis yesterday and agreed with it completely. Why the Dems are afraid to spend their political capital is one good question. Another is why they don't care enough about all those critically important matters to go for broke confronting them. Some bloggers are saying that no matter who wins, any real change to the status quo will have to come from a concerted grassroots effort. But maintaining the energy that's been building the last couple of years will require keeping the issues firmly in our line of vision and our hearts. If Obama can help us do that, why isn't he speaking forcefully about them at every opportunity instead of continuing to sing the same content-less song? Again, I fear that what is happening instead is that people are relaxing their hard-won awareness; most of us never put up much of a fight anyway and would far rather not now. I guess what it comes down to for me is the lack of fight about these critical issues in Obama's speechifying. I see today the papers say he showed some fight in his victory speech by referencing "the politics of divisiveness," but of course that was just a slam at the Clintons and a second verse of the "let's all be united" song. Fight is required for what needs to be done, fight and tons of facts. Uniting on the issues requires knowing all sides of the issues. But I think many are just hopeful that another Daddy's home.

dakotalin: I'm with you. Given the extraordinary leads Democrats have in the polls - which are not based on their positions (?) as much as they are on the fact that they are NOT Republicans - you'd think they'd have the courage to risk a few percentage points on calling for more sacrifice, taxes, control of military spending, a clearer separation between church and state, an end to torture, a commıtment to restore true balance to the federal and supreme courts, a unilateral effort to stabilize Iraq -- the list goes on.
It's what Bush called "political capital"
Why are the Democrats so afraid to spend it, when they have so much of it?

Another thing I'm noticing, as I read blog arguments regarding Obama, is that his supporters' arguments remind me of members of an evangelical mega-church. "If you don't agree with us, you're a non-believer!" The arguments are never about his policies - notice that? They also sound a lot like people who for so long, were violently angry at criticism of Bush when he made content-empty speeches about his brand of "patriotism." Then, as now, the argument was "don't expect more of him or criticize him, he's making us feel good!" It's just a fact that we should always look especially hard at a powerful person who continually bases his appeals on emotion, including positive emotions, rather than on issues (on which he/she can actually be challenged!

TheLorax. Talk of assasination is in poor taste. I think our security is more alert today than they were back in the 60's (which puts a smiley face on conspiracy theories). I won't dismiss it off hand but we can't choose our leaders based on who the Nuts on the Right will or won't assasinate.

With respect to Caroline Kennedy, why is it that we always hear how "inspirational" her late father was, and never hear about his accomplishments in public office. Were there any? I hardly count the Bay of Pigs as a hallmark of statesmanship. President Kennedy surrounded himself with "the best and the brightest," a phrase which has come to mean a bunch of Ivy Leaguers with no common sense whatsoever (and most of whom were born to comfort, if not wealth).

I have nothing against Mr. Obama, and have said elsewhere there is no chance whatsoever I'll vote GOP, but he has either wholeheartedly adopted (or fallen victim to) the modern political campaign mantra: Say Nothing. Sigh.

Sorry Caroline but Obama is not the way forward. Obama is the "lesser of 2 evils" and will fail miserably as president.
It is unfortunate that decent candidates seem to be in short supply.
JFK was a great president. I can't agree that Obama can fill those shoes.
If Obama is elected, history is likely to repeat itsself. This country still has too many white supremist racist morons to allow a black president. If Obama is elected he will try to de-escalate the Iran affair and withdraw our troops from Iraq. (Just like JFK was doing with Vietnam). Some "white supremist" idiot will assassinate Obama (Just like JFK) and the vice president will immediately escalate all the conflict. (The same a LBJ). As in 1962, all of this will be an inside affair. The war machine has become "The Mangler" (to quote Stephen King) and it cannot be stopped by any one man or woman.

I have two overriding fears about Obama that I have difficulty getting past. One is why he is choosing to run for president when he hasn't even finished his first term as senator. Why, if he loves this country, doesn't he WANT to gain the seasoning, knowledge and experience that the country deserves before he runs? Is it arrogance, gross ambition, lack of genuine caring for the nation, poor judgment, all of these? The second is, as many have stated, his continuing reliance in his speeches on hazy calls to hope: emotion-based calls. We've seen the results of calls to Americans' emotions for the past 7 years; why are so many people willing to overlook, once again, the lack of hard facts and harder calls for sacrifice and difficult choices that we really need? That frightens me. It frightens me that Americans seem to have learned nothing, after finally beginning to awaken, due to the massive accumulation of lies and unnecessary deaths, and instead are casting their votes for someone else to "save" them. I'd far rather have a candidate who was confronting us grimly with the facts of our current situation (while still instilling confidence that we can handle it). I'd also far rather have a candidate who seemed as committed to the needs of the poor as to the idea that anyone can rise to great wealth as he has; is Obama a candidate of the people or of money? The fact is, if the corporate owners that run everything in this country wanted a "Manchurian candidate" to protect their interests, they'd be delighted to find someone like Obama: charismatic, with a message the opposite of Bush's fear-based one but equally appealing to emotions rather than logic, reasoned argument and facts. Maybe he is not that at all, but the way we would know that would be his refusal to pander to superficial emotions, his giving us hard facts and risking some rejection instead of being all things to all people.

The Dark Army!

Trillions for Halliburton/Carlyle and
Nothing for you!
While our Militia is being slaughtered in BUSH's evil WAR.
The Dark army guards them!
How absurd?
The Dark Army must be disbanded.
A foreign Cor'pirate' Army on American soil is in violation to The Constitution.
Mercenaries have always spelled trouble for America.
From day ONE.
From the Prussians during the American Revolution,
To the legion of lawyers that are ruining Washington today,
Paid mercenaries of the Corpirates.
A more inclusive government must be created immediately,
Change from the Corpirate controled monolithic system of politics we have now ,
To a brooder, kinder, gentler inclusive one.
Power to the People!
A new branch of government!
Equal to the power of the other three combined,
With representatives from all the tiniest fractions of the citizenry.
True representative government.
One Citizen equals One Vote!
Government run by consensus instead of by GREED.
Free the Media first.
Lift the Corpirate yoke of oppression from our airwaves.
Break up the media monopolies.
One outlet in one market.
If they have violated the public trust be spewing propaganda?
Their license must be revoked.
Total opening of low band FM frequencies to local ownership.
Media is media.
No foreign ownership.
No diversification.
The Corpirates and their phony Schlock market must be policed and regulated.
Corpirate crime dwarfs all other crime in comparison.
Violent or otherwise.
Polluting the environment and poisoning millions of people is a violent crime that is,
Violating our basic human right to clean air and pure water.
Then:
Take the money and graft out of politics.
Level the playing field.
Publicly finance all elections.
Putting realistic Limits on the amount of money that can be spent.
Buying power to get more power is a vicious cycle that must be stopped today.
Take back everything Bush has stolen with interest.
Rescind all Bush tax cuts.
The media will provide free air time equally to all candidates,
According to broadcasting statute, as a public service.
Government is supposed to be a leveler instead of a Corpirate enabler.
There is a lot of work to be done.
First we must take back our government!
Then institute:
Positive change.
Out with the old fossil fuel, military, media, monopolies and in with
A new Greener, gentler, uplifting, citizens representative Government.
Stop the bickering over semantics.
We have work to do.
The First Hundred Days of change.

Kem Patrick:

I'm sure he is less than perfect. He might have a horrble presidency like Jimmy Carter's, even with the best intentions. He does this a little, but its refreshing to have a candidate that hasn't tried to be on every side of every issue for so long you can't stand it any more. Kerry and Gore come to mind. And I won't have to "hold my nose and vote for Hillary". That isn't a given yet, of course.

This is the election where Colin Powell should have been able to capitalize on 8 years of prosperity, security, improved international relations and a balanced budget. Instead its a basket case and he's at the beach or some place, probably still in a funk about he how got (neo)conned into telling all those fibs at the UN.

zookini,
I'll stop generationally generalizing when the candidates do. A democracy is supposed to appeal to the needs of all citizens, but of course none of us are that naive. If you don't think Hitlery and the Obaminable Snowman aren't pouring over demographic Excel sheets you need to leave Dupesville, baby.

Another president with a thing for pills and swinging with multiple chicks; cool!

dakotalin: Right on! I keep waiting to hear how Obama is going to "change" things. He's also turning out to be extremely thin skinned. He's playing in the Big Leagues where his past and his voting record are going to be scrutinized by his opponents. Hillary has the most balls among this whole bunch because she's been there before and no one has been vilified like her and Bill. If you're going to run for President, you better be prepared to take the hits. Why is everybody so surprised and outraged when Bill Clinton points out the inconsistencies in Obama's speeches vs. his voting record. My biggest concern regarding Obama is that when he had an opportunity to vote on continued funding of the Iraq War, he didn't show up in the Senate to cast a vote one way or the other. Sen. Clinton did show up as did Sens. Biden and Dodd who were still running for president at the time. Perhaps Barack is getting bad political advice, but that's no excuse either, look at how Karl Rove was allowed to politicize every single issue in the Dubya White House. Vote for Barack as the alternative to Hillary (actually they're almost identical in their views) but please don't for one minute think that he, as president, will be able to make any real radical changes. The corporate powers that be will not allow that to happen. And, frankly, I just haven't seen any signs from Barack Obama that he is ready willing and able to take on those corporate powers.

My thanks to Caroline Kennedy. I think she is right about what the country needs, right about what she sees in Senator Obama. And so right about the importance of hope and direction for the young people of America. Apparently a huge number of people in South Carolina thought so too.

This country hovers on the edge of a precipice.

We owe our children a leader who will inspire them.

Stop bickering and start enabling this to happen.

A brave woman who lost her father in a terrible moment we all still wish did not happen puts herself in the public eye in behalf of her father's legacy, and she is greeted by scorn?

We are better than that. Caroline, don't mind them; we are better than that. I am so proud of you. You are your father's daughter.

Maybe an alien? Maybe not.

zookini -

'generational generalizations' are the favourite topic of just about any political commenmtator especially in an election year.
Clearly it touched a nerve with you. So which one of the morons are you ... the old geezer or sprightly teen ?? Lemme guess ...

This is really cute, you guys. All this oohing and ahhing over absolutely nothing. I must ask, exactly what on earth makes any one of you think that our votes matter? They didn't the last two times, this one will be no different. It's all well and good to speak of "Change" and "Hope for a new day", but it just comes off like an old sick drunk at a tent revival, eyeing the communion wine as his wife tries to hide the bruises. Make the smart choice this year: stay home, turn off the TV, and pray you have a job in the morning.

~BBR-001. I tend to agree with your last post, except you claim Obama has no skeletons in his closet. __ Really?

We'll see, if he does, Hillary and Billy will be dragging them out for full view. Then if he wins the nominatin, The Repugs will drag them out again, and any others Hillary and Billy missed. The fact is, we don't know much about Obama. I'll say one thing, if he's as good a man as he comes across in his speeches, he is a hell of a good man, a Statesman. We'll see as time goes by. There will be tons of dirt thrown, we'll have to determine if any is credible dirt. We may be very surprised.

~VAUDREE~ Evidently you don't know how politics works here in America. The one selected by a party chooses a running mate, not a person to be the president, but one who is deemed most desirable to garner votes, __ it's called a slate. Would Edwards wish to fill that role? Well, he did it last time, I don't have a clue if he wants to this time, if he does, he messed up. Finally, you say it is sometimes desirable for one to poop in their mess kit. Really? __ For example?

Why is it, when I offer a mundane opinion, you almost always want to tell me I'm wrong? If I say up, you say down. You often write very good blogs and you also are often a busybody. __ Yackity-yak.

Well, one thing Obama has going for him that Clinton doesn't,
he's got the Kennedy family and John Kerry backing him.

But, he's got right wing pundits like George Will, Andrew Sullivan, Robert Novak,
Chris Matthews (said to be a leftish), and Robert Kaplan.

Crazy world seeing them all together with the "youth vote" ta'boot. Crazy world having
Obama and Clinton being pitched as the only viable "democratic" candidates.

I feel for all the young people who eventually will get sucked up into all of this hype and convert,
"born again" into the role of a foot soldier for Empire. All this crap about the younger generation
being the bright tomorrow... god, help us. it's all canned heat. don't convert.
i'm not saying younger gen sucks, I'm saying the hard-sell to our younger friends is a con-
the hard-sell is the canned goods

must be late

Does Caroline have a crush on Obama?

Goal #1 is to get the neocons out of the White House. If Obama is an inspirational speaker, then more power to him. An Obama candidacy will have a problem with a certain set of single issue voters - white racists.

A lot of the criticism above is derived from the necessity to appeal to the audience in front if him. He can't do anything of he doesn't get elected. Lets vote for him and trust he brings in good people, builds a coalition in congress, and starts a restoration of our republic.

He is a clean slate. No room full of incriminating papers. No Whitewater or Rose Law firm scandals. No connection to the filthy rich power brokers. No sleazy sex scandals. He is less beholden to lobbyists than any other candidate. No religious litmus tests for public policy and scientific fact. He appears to be an intelligent, energetic, honest young man with great leadership capabilities who would run the government with passion, professionalism and respect for the people.

When our system of government turns from rule by the will of the people through the usury power of money, hope will be crushed ...as our free trade policy is doing diligently every single day of the year, every year.

Caroline Kennedy's weighing in?

And we care because?

In the 90s, as impeachment clouds gathered, she wrote that column saying Bill Clinton should be impeached for sex. But she never mentioned, then or since, her own father's sexual conduct. No one can bring that up to her, no one can ask her about that. It's off limits.

Her whole life has been off limits. She's done what exactly? Grow on Ari O's dime. Oh, okay, that's while I listen to her.

Her brother at least attempted to make contributions.

The other thing that really bothers me is that we keep hearing if Hillary gets elected it will be a dynasty. That may be a worthy complaint. But if we think so, why are we supposed to care what someone from the Kennedy dynasty thinks?

In a column she chose to write, she can't outline one concrete reason why anyone should vote for Obama. I can't figure out if she's that dumb or she thinks we are?

But I really don't worship at the Cult of Kennedy. I didn't clip photos of her mother when she died (or of Princiess Di). Give me an endorsement from someone who matters because they've dedicated their lives to public service (elected office, etc.) or because they've been for workers. Don't give me the 'inspiration' of a wealthy, well off heir because she or he will not speak to me.

Just like Jesse Jackson, Obama will lose unless he gets specific with proposing what the majority of this country want, and while no one else is touching it. C'mon Barack, before it's too late and you will never catch up. Right now, propose at least amending the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the Military Commissions Act. And propose single payer health insurance. And also ending the blockade of Cuba. You'll sweep the country with that. Hillary will have nothing to top those proposals. But you must state them first, before she gets a sniff of what they will mean to her campaign if she states them first.

thank you caroline kennedy for your thoughtful endorsement of obama,

i agree that he appeals to many as a human being who is energized and capable of leading all of us. this point is reinforced by recent polling showing obama faring better in the general against mccain (the republican candidate closest to the center / ie center right) think of a man in his mid 40's, from a multi racial background running against a man in his 70's whose ran for president several times. this contrast is being reflected in the recent polling (realpolitics.com polls). the democratic luminaries are supporting obama in hopes of broadening the democratic base (the youth). dean was effective (incorporating inet) and in many ways obama's insurgent campaign is the resurgent manifestation of the dean campaign in 2004. in every race IA,NH,NV,SC thus far record amounts of democratic voters have turned out to vote. the question in november (as it will be framed for us by MSM) will be status quo experience (mccain/clinton) or undefined change (obama/edwards). yet as the convention approahes the party will solidify that policy, and the candidate will tow the dems line (hopefully edwards, who already has influenced the tenor of the discussion, will have input). at this point character will be critical, even the NYT's acknowledged obama's character in their endorsement of clinton .

cinton on the other hand brings intense (i believe intense is an understatement) scrutiny and animosity from all (rt,lft,cntr)don't be surprised as the clintons continue to politically self destruct. we're all waiting. act 1 scene 5

jullian- i also work, sustain myself, no kids, one cat; i try........ but i disagree w/ w dyers statement that if all the wealth in the world was redistributed it would return to the hands of the few in a couple of years.

that's ridiculous. 1. it's never happened 2. it's absurd to hypothesize what that world would look like without a radical reconception of what life is. however there are numerous examples of traditional peoples sharing and living in a more altruistic society.

vote your conscience in the primaries but if theres a brokered convention (ya notice how michigan and florida might be in play at a brokered convention, in clinton's favor?) in denver, please encourage edwards to pledge his delegtes to obama to prevent a clinton coronation.

RE: - Forget Edwards, he pooped in his mess kit, by running TV ads saying he is the only one of the three who is adult enough to be the president. How could he now support either of them and be credible?

Sometimes it is the right move to poop in one's mess kit - and sometimes no one can tell the difference.

Hey we all know that Cheney has been like a father figure for GWB - that GWB's purpose was to put a kinder gentler face on the policies of Cheney and his friends.

Why would Edwards want to be VP?

The big criticism of Gore's environment policies is that he didn't do more to implement them when he was VP. And the common answer was that he was muzzled so he couldn't.

Being VP is only good for Edwards if the President lets him run things. Do you see either Hilarious or Bam Bam doing that!

Ginger - what do you think the odds are that Obama will actually tell us what he stands for before sub-prime Tuesday?

RE - I have a disease that will take my life.

I hope that you will not suffer much and be secure in the knowledge that your children and grand children will be ok.

Thank-you Juliann,

Like I wrote I am working for a society where people don't have to resign themselves to a short life of hard toil like you have. Such a society that has at least partially been achieved in some other countries (Norway, France), so there is nothing impractical about it.

And, by necessity - it starts with making the rich and powerful (wealth and power are same thing) less rich and powerful.

Paul D.
Pittsburgh

Hate to have to stick a pin in the Obama balloon, but talking constantly and even inspirationally about hope and change won't bring it about. The problems in this country are so deep-seated and entrenched that it will require perhaps two or more decades of sacrifice and a complete change of consciousness in the populace just to mend the damage done in the past three decades since Reagan became president. Just changing the American health care mess into something reasonable and affordable will be an incredibly painful process in which many, many thousands of people employed by the private insurers will have to find new work. Is the country ready for the sort of sacrifice that will be necessary? I don't see any evidence of it. Rather I see a country divided into around 20% progressives, 50% confused centrists, and 30% proto-fascists. More likely is financial crash, mass confusion and panic, state-of-emergency and martial law declared and dictatorship here in the good old US of A.

Truthseeker (who wrote ""You people never think of the way other people's lives are — just as long as it's good for YOU, you feel fit to judge everyone else."") and others - first of all, "Truthseeker," I am not now nor have I ever been part of a group called "you people." Try to get over your bigotry.

I've been working since I was 11 years old (boxing eggs); I was raised on welfare. I am now in my 57th year. I don't believe in taking handouts. I wasn't smart enough to finish a college education but I'm an excellent secretary. When I've been able, I've donated money here and there ($50 or so) to college freshmen and women to help defray their book costs. I believe in people and their ability to always raise themselves up. My mother, the daughter of an immigrant coal miner, raised us to believe that. Sometimes raising ourselves up has to do with living by our values and ideals, not material goods.

Yes, I pay rent, utilities, car repair, groceries ... my last vacation was in 1989. I have no pension plan. I live alone with my cats. I have a disease that will take my life. I could do better financially. I could finish college, learn another skill. We could ALL do better. My message remains the same: Stop whining. Stop expecting someone else to take care of you. Do something for others when you can.

Just what do some of you who respond on CD want? And can you answer that without stating what you would take from others? Can you answer with what you would do that would build our nation up, that would build for the future, that would strengthen this country? I just don't read it in many of the letters on here.

Stop looking for scapegoats and someone (like me) to snipe at. It does no one any good.

Peace.

Hhillary Clinton will be George "dubbya" on steriods. Is there anyone out there who doesn't believe that all of the powers he illegally usurped will only pave her with a golden precedent to continue to do the same? Who else besides a woman who has ALREADY been in the White House for eight years would feel as entitled as that madman whose father happens to be her husbands long time business partner?

Can anyone write a better script? 8 FUTURE years of national rehabilitation by a man named Barack Huessein Obama to remind G.W. Bush and his Neocons of the ABOMINATION of Iraq; the ABOMINATION of killing the leader that they put in power; the ABOMINATION of having Poppy bush and Donald Rumsfeld providing Saddam Huessein with the gas he used on the Kurds, the ABOMINATION of KATRINA down in NAWLENS, the ABOMINATION that the Constitution is "just a Goddamn piece of paper", the ABOMINATION that Americans should be wire tapped on phones and personal computers, the ABOMINATION that the media that uses the peoples air waves are an arm of a paranoid government.......thank you, REPUBLICANS, for ALLOWING ALL OF AMERICA TO EMBRACE YOUR OBAMA....NATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jiliann,

Among the industrial nations, only in the US do people have to work 60-90 hours a week to "get ahead". Please get this dreadful American Horatio Alger nonsense out of your mind! Do you thing ANY rich man - especially ones like Bush, EVER works as hard as your do?

Capitalism NEVER rewards hard work - it rewards selfishness and scheming-ruthlessness. As a socialst, there is one thing I would work 90 hours a week, and even take up arms and fight and die for - an economy that rewards solidarity and generosity - rather than greed, swindling and ruthlessness - where being good is the only way one can be. But I certainly won't sell 3/4 of my sweat and being to a capitalist who will get rich while I get a few crumbs, dreaming of the day I can be a rich man exploiting others in the same way.

Hillary is the one who's been beaten up so much she's actually had to take a position and own up to it. No one is forcing Barack to say what changes he'll make or how he'll lead. I did not start out as a Hillary fan; I was undecided. Now I'm becoming a Hillary fan because my long latent feminist anger is being aroused. If Barack weeps, he's being passionate, if Hillary weeps,she's either too weak to be president or she's being a phony. In this country we really haven't come to terms with what we expect from women. Many claimed to hate Bill for his womanizing ways yet those same people seem to hate Hillary, supposedly the victim of Bills' philandering ways, even more than they hate Bill. She can't win because women are not judged by the same standards as men. Third World Muslim nations have elected women as their leaders but I fear we're not evolved enough to do that here in the USA

Also another very usefull book is James Carrol s House of War. There has been so much disinformation published about kennedy. Yes he was in many ways as bloody as most other prez, but that is only the third of it. You HVE TO READ ABOUT BETWEEN 1961 AND 63. Also read Joan Mellens book . Go to good leftist Ralph Schenmans site called TakingAimRadio.

The left-gatekeepers have created a straw-dog about the kennedy assassination.

The new book published by Harvard U Press in March by David Kaiser will put Chomsky and Cockburn to shame. And by the way I am a great admierer of the Chomper, except for his categorically insane comments about JFK.

Jeez, I'm sorry, Caroline, but I don't *want* a president like your father.
---------
Geez there is a lot of Kennedy bashing on here. And not surprising given the systematic trashing of Kennedy by Chomsky and COckburn. I used to believe these two. Then I did something dangerous for official leftists: I actually read books about the Kennedy administration and the Kennday assassination. SInce then I have read about 300 books about the assassination but more to do with the structure of the cold war, intelligence and media.

Chomsky and Cockburn are simply wrong. This is not to say that there are not plenty of bellicos sounding things and actions that JFK undertook. BUT THEY NEVER TALK ABOUT THE PERMANENT NSC AND INTELLIGENCE AND MILITARY BUREACRACY that jfk ran up aganst. Go ahead and read Common Dreams contributor Gareth Porter's The Perrils of Dominance. Read Prof John Newman's JFK and Vietnam, Read David Kaisers JFk and vietnam book, read the Howard Jones Oxford University book on JFK and Vietnam. ALl of them say the JFK WAS VERY LIKELY GOING TO pull out of Vietnam. Jones intro even states he went into the research proving he was going to prove the oppostie.

Or you could belive newsweek magazines cover stroy from 1991 on JFK, a movie that was reviewed six months before the movie came out.

Kennedy is not easy to understand. Recall the the CIA was 13 years old when he came to power. Eight of those years it was given free reign under Eisenhower. Think about THAT when you think of JFK s situaiton.

There is a reason why Chomsky and Cockburn ONLY want to talk about the Missile Gap campaign of kennedy in 1960. Otherwise they would have to talk about the MUCH MORE COMPLICATED kennedy vs Permanent inte an millitary buroc, interactions that occured during two of the most DENGEROUS AND CONTENTIOUS MOMENTS IN AMERICAN HISTORY: The Cuban Missisle Crisis and the Bay of Pigs.

Anyone who REALLY reads about the ACTUAL KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION from actual historians knows that the Chomsky and Cockburn line is a gross simplification and a gross distortion. When one reads about the history of left-gatekeeping CIA connected magazines like Encounter and the similarity to The nation,..... well there are more !

ipenek / gyptian

It's amazing to me that you're able to casually dismiss millions of people with your stupid generational generalizations.

l. silvertongue

I can't help myself - a few more pieces of advice for Obama: (Mind you, this and previous advice is about winning and doesn't necessarily always, always reflect my political views. Like, for instance, I'm against greenwashing. More about me.)

- Make your campaign 100% green like those major music shows of late. (Carbon offsets for all those plane rides[yuck], no more gas guzzling SUV's or big buses, all things recycled, solar power at your events, etc.) The publicity will make up for the difference in $ for ads - which people mostly hate btw. There might not even be a difference in money, so you can buy ads about your green campaign.

- Propose a Century of Education - 7 generations. All public institutions and initiatives should have a focus on education. Call it a grand human experiment, connect with world leaders and provide the leadership and challenge them to do the same. It's time the world's priorities change in a way that's reflected in some significant percentage of the world's economy going towards relevant educational opportunities for everyone for the next century.

Jeez, I'm sorry, Caroline, but I don't *want* a president like your father.

Sweet girl. Touching column. And the clearest thinking I have read today.

Like Pandora, I, too, would like to believe in hope and sometimes it seems all that's left in America. No doubt the charismatic OBAMA is capitalizing on that. I feel skeptical. If he's the only choice besides McCain, well that will not leave me or the rest of us with much room.

Great posts: ALEX NOSAL, CO MARC, BIG JOE, NOTSONAIVE
and VOXCLAMANTIS: Damn, you're good! Love your writing lately!

Juliann,

Yeah, and the salary from your second job (which you work on weekends or after getting home from your workday 10 hours later) GOES ALL TO TAXES! I know -- I've been there! And what do you mean "WHEN" you have bills to pay. When is there NOT bills to pay? Do you pay rent, pay utilities, car repairs, food, etc? And get an education?? With what money from a secretarial salary pays for that?! I know -- I tried and got into debt up to my ears!

Just because things are going your way at this moment, don't think you are above hitting rock bottom. You people never think of the way other people's lives are --- just as long as it's good for YOU, you feel fit to judge everyone else. So stop GLOATING that you think you've got it all together. Nothing is for certain in this world, and your job can be gone tomorrow and, in this market, you could find yourself interviewing your socks off with no offers in sight.

Obama is likeable and especially attractive to the young, to minorities, and to the ignorant. Actually, it doesn't matter who gets the ticket, but I hope it's not another 8 years of Republican cowards who fail to vote for children's health or to opt for getting out of Iraq. As for Kennedy, we all need a refresher course regarding his Bay of Pigs, and Viet Nam. I prefer Ike. Think we will ever get a President that has principles according to our Constitution? Not if Kucinich and others like him are barred from the media and vote.

Juliann,

Yes, Miss America. That's a good girl. Pull up your own bootstraps. But what if you don't have any boots? What if someone stole them? Who would hire a bare-footed secretary?

I really should not take the bait, but when someone writes something as ignorant as ""If the Kennedy's want to help they can start by giving away their fortunes and living like the rest of us,"" I have to respond.

I believe it was on a Wayne Dyer tape that I heard that if all the money in the world (and yes, yours also, 'theleverer') were divided equally amongst all the people in the world ... within 2 years the once wealthy would be wealthy again, and the once poor would be poor again. That's because the ambitious will continue to be ambitious; and the lazy will continue to be lazy. (And don't think I have ANY illusions about Joe Kennedy Sr because I do not.)

I am a secretary, always have been. When I have more bills to pay, I take on a second job, just as the men and women I have always worked for have worked 60-90 hour weeks to get where THEY are.

Stop whining, Americans. STOP WHINING! Get out there and make something of yourselves. Get an education. Work smart. And give back to society!!! For a bunch of people who whine so much about crass commercialism, an awful lot of responders on CD sure do want something for nothing.

obama'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

hang a sword over all their necks: email Kucinich and ask him to stand as a write-in candidate.

reply@kucinichforcongress.com

All the present candidates say that they will consider military solutions "to protect American interests". They do not elaborate what these interests are. I see these interests as protecting the American corporations who are all over the world raping and pillaging the earth for its natural resources, stealing these natural resources from the local citizens, ruining their environment, dislocating local citizens who are in their way, exploiting third-world people for cheap labour, buying puppet governments, etc. etc.

The first step towards avoiding terrorist attacks and earning respect from the world is to apologize for all their plundering, pillaging and killing - their imperialism - throughout American's history.

The next step is to crack down on all these corporations (and government agencies protecting them) and allowing other countries to determine their own destinies.

The present candidates continue to perpetuate the myth that America became "great" by its own ingenuity and hard work. The "greatness" came through imperialistic/militaristic exploitation of other countries and people. (not to mention their own people - the slaves of yesteryear, drug companies making a killing off sick people, the likes of Walmart corporation, the banks, - the list of corruption and exloitation is just too long) The greedy quest for profit is not just harming citizens of other countries - it is harming American citizens as well.

So whenever I hear any of the candidates say "we will protect American interests" I see them as lackeys for the corporations.

The article is more of the usual American BS (and stupidity, infantility, etc.), and not that this is meant in any negative sense about or towards Obama, but that Ms Kennedy's words are poppy-crap bs.

I find the vitriol from Camp Clinton very revealing. Hillary had her chance to make a break from her husband's style of politics, but she chose not to, even using many of the same people we came to despise for their hyper-partisan (if not outright lying) ways years ago. Her character is forever marked by her choice of these unworthy tactics.

Who would be the better president as concerns the war in Iraq? George W. Bush himself has endorsed Hillary on this point. Is there anything more to say?

I recall that the relatively unknown Bill Clinton was largely elected on hope and proved, to very many of us, to be a big disappointment as president: his (and Hillary's) out-of-touch read on healthcare reform; his misplaced foreign policy priorities; his failure to build a strong Democratic governing coaltion; and, last but not least, his "permanent campaign" governing stye.

By contrast, Sen. Obama really seems to "get it." He has a track record of accomplishing bipartisan reform. He is not burdened by the ideological battles of the sixties, or the tired, old politics of the Clinton era.

And, of course, I have not yet even mentioned the well-documented problems in Bill Clinton's personal life or his troubled marriage to Hillary. Is it just me, or have we not had just about enough finger-wagging from 'ol Bill?

True, the econmomy eventually performed very well in the nineties. Bill (with a big assist from Bill Gates) did get some things right. But look at the flawed trade deals (the lack of environmental and labor provisions) he signed. And recall, too, that our current subprime mega-crisis stems directly from the decision by Bill Clinton and Bob Rubin to deregulate the banking industry, removing longstanding New Deal protections.

"Perhaps Dr. Dryasdust may rail at the emotionalism that in a dramatic moment blots out the record of a man's factual achievements and over-writes the page with poetry; but he will rail in vain. Wiser men than Dryasdust will not rail. Instead, they will weigh the wisdom of him who, if he were allowed to write the songs of a nation, cared not who wrote its laws. There are times in the history of a people when a symbol is worth more than a sage; and there is much reason to believe that Americans are living through such a moment. We have acquired wealth and power beyond the dreams of the men who founded the nation; but that we still possess the high hearts of the group that met in Philadelpha long ago is, to put it mildly, open to doubt."

"... when a nation has gained a symbol that can release the generous impulses of its young men and women it is fortunate beyond comparison."

[From "The Legend of John F. Kennedy," by Gerald W. Johnson, (c) 1963, The New Republc; (c) 1964, Caedmon Records, Inc.]

There are too many problems when we allow inspiration to guide our selection of presidents when one considers the mentality of voters who are most susceptible. Consider Regan: demolition of rational environmental programs, idiotic statements ("Mr Gorbechev tear down that wall")econimic blunders.
Then, Bush 2-- unprecedented environmental sellouts , character assinations, this ill conceived war, mission accompolished, and the list goes on.

Need I say more.

A Very interesting article and comments. The bottom line is, we'll most likely have a Republican president again if Obama or Hillary are the Democratic candidate. For a running mate? Forget Edwards, he pooped in his mess kit, by running TV ads saying he is the only one of the three who is adult enough to be the president. How could he now support either of them and be credible? __ He couldn't. I can see the Republican TV ads smearng that sceniro. I dunno, it don't look good to me. Obama is on a roll and now Ted K has also endorsed him and he is a great orator. Hillary has a few major problems.

Jacob Freeze -

"Have we gotten to the point where we have so little respect for our brave soldiers that no one thinks it's a significant difference between Obama and JFK that JFK was a real hero and Obama is just a blathering speech-maker?"

I got to that point in 1960, when I left the military (some of the dumbest and most belligerent people I have ever met) and returned to the real world. The military credential as a political litmus test just beggars reason. Please explain to me how finding yourself getting shot at in some foreign jungle, or getting that zillion-to-one opportunity to act like John Wayne, somehow confers upon you the intelligence, the education, the moral aptitude, the political skills, the vision to become an effective president. If we are going to test and compare the candidates, let's put them all on torpedo boats, open fire on the whole batch at once, and see who gets the JFK bravery medal. Then let's see who gets the best grade in world history and who can pass freshman English. Let's see who can name the most foreign heads of state or describe the major logical fallacies or win the most support for a social initiative without bribery or bullying. Let's not forget diplomacy skills and conversance with foreign languages and cultures. And enough IQ points to grasp legal principles. And enough wisdom not to dismiss what you don't understand as fictitious or threatening. Maybe even some creativity and compassion.

The job of soldiery is duty, pure and simple. The brain of a soldier contains a list of gung ho imperatives. Soldiers do what they are told. They are not called upon to create a better world, but to barge into the shell blasted, chlorine reeking battlefields inherited from their soldier fathers. Their courage is part of the brute ammo that we hurl at the enemies we accrue when virtues like the ones listed above have gone missing. Soldiers like John McCain who believe that the world needs military solutions are advocating for the reptilian part of human nature, the bloody, combative, inertia that has taken us through our murderous history to the brink of nuclear annihilation. To hell with soldiers.

Apologize for grammatical errors, keyboard broken, working with half real keyboard and the rest I am using a virtual keypad. 'PTSD and children', it should read. As well as 'talkabout'. sorry

"Who do you want to nuke, Barack?"

Barack replies,

"Nobody, right now."

You gotta love that disclaimer, "right now"

The only thing I really like about him is that he was the only candidate that would speak to or acknowledge Mike Gravel's presence.

If you look at his backers and financial support he looks little better than Clinton. In this aspect he has some appeal to me because he hasn't be around long enough to be as corrupted as Clinton.

Somebody please tell me what he has really done to stop all this imperialist warmongering?

He supports ethanol production! This is just another scheme to concentrate energy production, starve more people, and pollute the environment further.

Heck, I'd vote for Ron Paul before Obama but he's just another lousy SOB that admires reagan too. I might cast a vote in Obama's favor but only to try to thwart another declared republican presidency. It seems like by the time the general election gets here we'll only have a closet republican and a declared republican from which to choose.

So much for real change. Bill Clinton and George Bush gave us plenty of change. I don't know if the world can stand much more change.

As a young man, I thought the world would change after Kennedy acquired office. That didn't happen, but events seemed to be moving in a positive direction. Unfortunately that election and its outcome is the exception rather than the rule.

PJD, I'm glad you pointed that out. JFK didn't stop the Vietnam conflict, in fact he turned up the heat with American "advisors," and how many times did we try and off Castro?

If the Kennedy's want to help they can start by giving away their fortunes and living like the rest of us.

PJD. Thanks for your posts. I remember vividly being in elementary school and having our teacher explain what we were to do when the sirens would blare during the Bay of Pigs debacle.
The drills, you must hide under your desks chidren, if in the hallway back against the wall and hunker down, children. When outside you hit the dirt, throw your body face down on the ground and DO NOT MOVE!
The fear we had, our parents would never be able to get us in time if it ACTUALLy occured. We were frightened and given to a PTD reaction after, I am frightened to this day by those memories. We had a Bomb shelter, remember them?, 3 miles away, we had our supplies at the ready.
No I do not ever want that to happen again, I will never vote for a pro-death penalty, pro-Israel, pro-Reagan talklabout, not ever.

REF: Obama is full of lots of nice sounding talk about 'hope' and 'change' and not being divisive. But he never says why we should have hope with him in charge. He won't say how things will change with him in charge.

Obama has refused to tell us the exact changes he will make and how he will bring about these changes. All we hear is he will bring change. We need specifics. We need to see his blueprint for change in order that "we the people" can make an informed decision. Edwards has layed his plan out on the table in great detail for all of us to see and examine. Now we need to see the exact plans for both Obama and Clinton. Both of them have spoken in great generalities. The time has now come for each of them to get very specific. Then and only then can "we the people" make an informed decision of who we believe will be the best person to be the leader of the free world.

We have nothing to fear but the Clintons themselves.

This is an election about who we are, who we want to be. If America does not regain its can-do, we're in it together, no man is an island spirit in its greatest traditions, it will soon fade into a shadow of its former self. Here is an analysis of the latest on the Clintons versus Obama. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/27/14512/4399/221/444226

The only way to beat the republicans is at thier own game. Don't play fair. If you work for a corporate whore, quit and figure out something else to do. Working harder for a corporate pig just makes the pig fat. Work smart or not at all.

I would vote for Mr Dressup over Captain Kangaroo - and the Friendly Giant as Vice President. I can picture that warm fireplace right now.

Bigjoe - that is a damning article on Obama's war stance. The problem is that the "Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet" is presently Premier of Ontario - his real name is Dalton McGuinty. I tell you, what works one place is often tried elsewhere.

Premier=Governor

RE: - Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things.

Brian Mulroney also had that "special ability" - you can hear it when he speaks - like Obama and Kennedy - larger than life:

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

RE: - Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates' goals are similar.

Now I know Carolyn is just blowing smoke out of her ear. The message is "Don't worry your pretty little head about the issues, they are not important!"

Wasn't Kennedy close to the rat pack? I am not talking specifically about being associated with Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin or Sammy Davis Jr but wasn't the Corporate Mafia involved some how? My memory is very vague on this issue.

RE: - If truth be told Bill Clinton was more like JFK, however Bill could never match JFK's record with respect to the excesses of prescription drugs and sexual experimentation.

So you are saying that "Hillary Primary Aftermath (3:07)" depicts JFK moreso than it depicts Bill?

http://www.sketchcom.com/seasons/season15/080111.html

There is also a spoof of the three party leaders trying to cry like Hillary but on this week's episode rather than last week's.

BTW - what do you know of the sex lives of Canadian Politicians? I'm sure we've done worse!

RE: - The kind of "inspirational hope" Obama has given us this far is based purely on his rhetorical abilities, as was JFK's. When Barack gives specifics, he's far less inspiring

That is why I recommend the Mulroney test - Mulroney , like Reagan, was a master at this type of emotional manipulation. I can just picture the stereotypical American watching the interrogation of Mulroney and wondering why we are being so mean to such a wonderful honest man. But I am starting to wonder whether this stereotype of Americans being easily lead by rhetoric is wrong. Is it?

RE: - Obama's keynote address at the 2004 DEM convention was the first time I felt hope and pride for my country in a long, long time. This nation desperately needs that kind of leadership. Obama seems to have a sense of the goodness of this nation.

I watched that live too. It was inspirational, but there were parts of it that started to slip dangerously close to right-wing rhetoric - at the time I thought I was imagining things with that observation. I got the impression then that Obama was not just offering a better future but blaming the poor for their situation - that they did not work hard enough or were not inspired enough or did not take advantage of opportunities enough - but it was mixed with the truth that we can all do a bit better that we are. There was an internal battle at the time whether this talk was more motivational or more blame - and I decided it was more of the former but could not completely dismiss the latter.

RE: - I wonder if it is the same folks who were sayin vote for Dennis are now sayin Obama can't win.

It is probably only the Obamites that are spreading that message hoping to benefit from the back-lash against it. I have to admit that the idea of a Black President or a Woman President is sexy - it makes us feel good about ourselves as a nation and morally superior to other nations who have never had a Black President or a Woman President. But Obama is no El-Farouk Khaki (wikipedia) - there is no substance behind him.

RE: - Well Caroline I must say I believe you have been duped. There is more to leadership than a deep voice projecting empty platitudes.

Maybe Carolyn believes that tax cuts for the rich will save the world - they will definitely benefit the people she grew up knowing. Why do we always assume that those doing the duping are being duped!

RE: - Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.

Let's ignore the fact that if one was really interested in fighting a war against terror, one would be recruiting more police officers rather than more soldiers and putting the NRA on the list of terrorist organizations.

Let's focus instead on Obama's failure to distinguish between COMBAT missions and peace-keeping or disaster relief missions. What is important is not just how much one spends on the Military but what one spends it on. I would like to see Military uniforms being both more comfortable and more bullet proof because that would be useful no matter what the mission. And you do need special aircraft if you are going to deliver food packages to places where the places to land are not so good.

Ok everybody doesn't like somone BUT Obama is the best chance we are going to have this season to get somone that mostly says the rite things and can win so get behind him.

REF: Rule #3: Don't sell a corporate agenda with the language of grassroots social movements. When you get into office, represent us – not the corporations or the rich. Be that rare public servant that says what they mean and does what they say.

I am extremely concerned about Obama's relationship with corporate America. He has accepted many of their large donations and therefore will be baholding to their agendas. At this point in time, we are in dire need of someone who will side with "we the people" and NOT with "we the corporations and the wealthy".

OBAMA IS A REPUBLICAN BAIT, why democrats don't get it? No Candidate of the left has ever made it in an American Election. Obama is not electable in the American heatland the support of Kennedys for him would be another nail in Democratic Party's chances of winning the next election. With demcrats divided, and Clintons in disarray there seems Republicans are the only winners. Just like in the past a minority party of organized true believers has been successful to fool the disorganized Democrats that they should vote with their liberal hearts rather than a strategy to win the presidency and get the vote of over 100,000,000 of voting white moderate Americans.

Senator Obama:

You have brought me over to your camp. I had been for Kucinich because of the war and the impeachment movement he was leading. Then he moved his support for you and I was mystified, and decided to support Edwards. I have been fighting with my conscious because I could not understand how Kucinich could be for you and why I was so angry at all of the politicians. Edwards has a good message about the poor and forgotten working families. But now, I have been listening more closely to you, and have found peace in my heart, because you reached me with your message of unity, irregardless of color, financial status, or gender. Most of all your example of steering clear of the false assumptions you listed in your So. Carolina victory speech is the leadership that I can follow. You have my vote, and my pledge to work for your election come November. I urge the Mexican American voters in California to do the same. Afterall, we have the same concerns that men and women, White, Black, Brown and Yellow or Red, have. And one more thing, Californios and anyone else that is reading this: haven't the years of George W. Bush, and Bush senior, with their token bad appointments because of color or ethnicity, reflected badly on us all? Isn't it better that we have leaders who look beyond our color, language, creed, and gender, and treat us all as the Americans we all are? Vote for Barak Obama in your primary and in November.

I regret that some of my fellow "progressives" (and the righties who come on CD to contribute "junk" messages) feel the need to slam a personality or bring up what is really very unimportant details when someone like Ms. Kennedy writes such an important piece. This article is her opinion, her belief. I value what the Kennedy family has meant to America, the sacrifices they made. Who amongst us can throw the first stone? Who amongst us can say OUR family did so much for America? Do your research, people.

And as I said, this article is Ms. Kennedy's opinion, her belief. She is an extremely well educated woman, and I'm willing to listen.

Side note: I have her book, A Patriot's Handbook, on my computer table. I have dial up so while I wait for this slow machine to work, I read some of the book. It's excellent.

Peace, people. And remember - it begins with each of us.

Juliann

alt January 27th, 2008 7:44 am
It seems with his victory in South Carolina, Obama is now the "new inevitability" - for however long that will last

The vitrol on this site is beyond belief.
Mighty Whitey just can't stand Barack on Any level.

well, I voted for my first African American President yesterday and I'm PROUD to have done so!!
The Clintons, like the Bushes need to go away, please. We are tired of you, please MOVE ON OR GET OUT THE WAY... PLESAE, GO AWAY!!!

Obama is better than Clinton and might be able to energize people enough to elect him..but I suspect Hilary will get the nomination because of the Bradley effect and her connections.
Then she will most likely lose to the Republican especially if its McCain. I have this weird feeling we are going to see an "incident" october surprise courtesy of Bush as a gift to McCain.

But Obama never talks about the poor or poverty.

Obama is the face on a very skillful campaign. He plays on the fact that most people just see in a Pres candidate what they want to see. In this sense, they've mastered the propaganda techniques that Bush used. Just a small example: a majority of people who voted for Bush think that he supports Kyoto.

Obama is very good at this. He throws lots of words out that test well with the pollsters and the focus groups. "Hope" and "Change", etc. While doing this, he's careful never to spoil anyone's illusions. So to all voters he always looks like what they want to see. He looks good, and he sounds good. And he rarely says anything of substance that could break anyone's illusions. So people see what they want to see.

He steals the rythyms of a black preacher. Thus people hear that and think he's another MLK Jr.

Thus its no surprise that a Kennedy sees JFK. Everyone sees what they want to see. And JFK is what a Kennedy would want to see.

I like Caroline Kennedy! To think that what we have today is the result of what we lost yesterday is telling. If we are to have a new day as Caroline states, it will be because americans get up off thier asses and do something. Take a stand, notice that homeless guy and actually do something to create equality and justice.

Barf!

Anytime I see a candidate trying to be JFK, I just want to barf. Because that alone tells me they are a shallow phony. They are such a phony that they can't stand on their own two legs, but have to instead pretend to be a long dead President.

Obama is all smoke and mirrors. He's full of lots of nice sounding talking about 'hope' and 'change' and not being divisive. But there's nothing underneath. He doesn't say why we should have hope with him in charge. He won't say how things will change with him in charge.

Surely a candidate that just spread BS around and won't say what he'll actually do should be regarded as highly dangerous.

And there are clues that this is very dangerous. The corporate money that's backing him, and that you know he won't disappoint. And the fact that when he slams people for being divisive, its always the left he slams. Its always those evil 60's that are bad. That last time that the people in the country really tried to stand up and stop corporate rule, that's Obama's example for what's bad and he what he wants to stamp out and prevent.

He never speaks of the divisiveness of the right. The horrible splitting of this nation into rich and poor. He never calls that excessive. In fact he walks around talking about what a wonderful uniter Ronald Reagan was.

This man is all smoke and mirrors and a new face put on the same old corporate rule. Be happy with your Obama puppet replacing the Dubya puppet. Even pretend he looks like your old JFK doll in the closet that's getting a little worn from time. But don't fool yourself that this man isn't a puppet. Just the very basic fact that he refuses to tell you what he really wants to do as President should scare you badly.

Will some contributors please re-read my post on Kennedy. (he was called "Camelot") Kennedy was a warmongering imperialist who brought humanity to the brink of destruction. So my fear is that Obama might very well be a Jack Kennedy.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal under the following citation:

For extremely heroic conduct as Commanding Officer of Motor Torpedo Boat 109 following the collision and sinking of that vessel in the Pacific War Theater on August 1-2, 1943. Unmindful of personal danger, Lieutenant (then Lieutenant, Junior Grade) Kennedy unhesitatingly braved the difficulties and hazards of darkness to direct rescue operations, swimming many hours to secure aid and food after he had succeeded in getting his crew ashore. His outstanding courage, endurance and leadership contributed to the saving of several lives and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

Have we gotten to the point where we have so little respect for our brave soldiers that no one thinks it's a significant difference between Obama and JFK that JFK was a real hero and Obama is just a blathering speech-maker?

"but because we are acting and mobilizing and creating our own reality. Candidates and Presidents will only follow us if we lead."

In John Steinbeck's novel , "The Moon Is Down", the German-Nazy commandant whose troops were occupying a small un-named Norwegian town threatened to execute the mayor and councillors in turn if the railway saboteurs were not fingered . It may be Hollywood but the mayor and council quietly replied that he would be forced to execute the entire population because each citizen would step forward and become mayor. Such was the community spirit and the phenomenon that every citizen had service and leadership skills .

This idea completely dumbfounded the commanding officer whose military background programmed him to command unquestionably from the top down : If he was removed , his inferior officer would less capable than he and so on down the chain of command . The idea that ANY soldier under his command would be as brilliant as he was completely unthinkable.

I can't find the above quotation's author but in nut-shell she/he is saying like John Steinbeck , Americans , never mind who is elected , get off the couch and be the change you want to make , one town at a time .

Cynical old farts.

Is there any reason to be optimistic? The reality is Democracy is dead in America, corporations choose our candidates (like Obama), rhetoric rules, a steady decline in the life styles of the average American have occurred for three decades now, our government is responsible for the deaths of over a million innocent Iraqi's, over 100,000 unnecessary operations are performed every year in America because of a profit based health care system, over 300 million guns are lying about with a country that still has the industrialized world's highest murder rate, a class of poor that is below any rung of society in Western Europe, a nation that spends half of its tax dollars on the military and homeland security, an illiteracy rate and general ignorance of the general populace that is lower than that of many third world countries (or of Americans in 1776!) and a culture of consumerism that is accelerating the destruction of our environment with no end in sight.

What's there to be cynical about?

Yet here comes along a new politician with a short and dubious track record (he caved in to the medical industrial complex in Illinois) who talks all about change and hope while never mentioning the publics true opponent (predatory corporations) or the solutions required to reverse this nasty state of affairs.

Voting for Obama is like voting for Britney Spears.

I agree with lpenek. It's not that Bush lacked vision or was poor at managing important symbols. It was far deeper than the abstract/ephemeral arena -- Bush's damage and the Democrats' acquiescence went deep into the socio-economic reality of this country.

So we're THROUGH with talk and vision. Now is the time for action and substance.

Given that Obama missed a lot of votes in '07, courted AIPAC, and supported Liebermann, what are we to make of his actions?

I was for Kucinich. I might vote for Obama, I won't vote for Hillary.

bigjoe...

OK maybe you are not lying... you are quoting what someone else is pointing out and quoting.
Every speech has a context and I like to judge what a speaker says by what I hear him say in the total context of the speech or debate.

I read the article by Tom Hayden... I just don't spin what Tom said like you do. You are spining someone elses spin.
I judge Obama on what I hear directly and in full context....
I don't need to believe in someone elses spin.