I left the USA in 2003 because of the Iraq War and have been living and teaching in Thailand for the past 5 years. I supported Kucinich and Edwards, but now I am supporting Obama. His strong statements in opposition to the Iraq War are a lot better than Hillary Clinton's refusal to apologize for her shameful vote to authorize Congressional support for an illegal and unconstitutional war of aggression. Her Walmart Board of Directorship work also rankles me greatly. More importantly, I believe if it comes down to a vote in November between Clinton and McCain, McCain will win because he is more likeable. Therefore, we must all work incredibly hard to make sure that Clinton does NOT get the Democratic nomination in Denver. I belong to Democrats Abroad in Thailand and will be voting on next Tuesday Feb. 5 in Bangkok for Obama. Democrats Abroad get 22 delegates at the convention, and if necesary, I will go to Denver!

ESHU__You need to cool down a bit or you might blow your top and will not be around to give us any more informative posts. I notice you and chlamor both hate the ground the two democratic contenders walk on but do not offer the solution to the countries problems. If you think the Clinton years were so bad , what must your opinion be of Bush`s destruction of everything he got close to? At least Clinton had the guts to raise taxes on the rich and balance the budget so after eight years they talked of paying off the national debt. Now our kids have ten trillion of tax cuts to the rich and a war charged up to them. Our country is going down the drain, and all some of you can think of to do is trash both Democratic contenders.

NANCY PACE___ Who has not been tested yet as president and we have no idea if he can follow up his impressive speech with action and withstand the corporate rule that does not want all of his ideas?

Who has a middle name that the right wingers will have a field day with and close connections with a backward Muslim country?

Look at the facts - The sleaze label because she takes money from the same interests as Bush, supports the war, etc, etc.

Also, last time I looked many of the problems started with Bill. What do you call 500,000 dead Iraqi children from our Bill installed illegal sanctions?, NAFTA(ask never-to-work workers about this) and corporate capitalistic globalization which is going to make us a 3rd world country.

I can well understand why the Neocon Swiftboaters are sharpening their knives. Ignoring reality won't help. I cannot think of a better way to bring out the sexist pigs of the US than to nominate Billary.

What Obama has obscured is that he wasn't a Senator when he opposed the invasion and occupation and didn't have to vote on the authorization. As a centrist Democrat in his two years in the Senate he has made statements agreeing with the Bush policies and has voted to continue funding the war. He also has made no statements that he'd recommend pulling the troops out now.

It's not truthful to paint Obama as the progressive anti-war candidate without looking deeper than his pretty speeches and color. Read his statements. Look at his voting record. Then decide. I am a Hillary supporter and I am ready for this fight. Howabout you?

It's common knowledge that Obama was NOT in the U.S. Senate when the vote for the Iraq invasion was taken. He does not try to obscure this. I don't know who I will vote for in November but it will definitely be a Democrat. I am for the truth about the candidates, however. The Republicans spread enuf lies about the Dems without us joining them!

The war will go on and on. These two were nominated by the Corporations to divide the opposition. The more people who fall for these bendovercrats, rather than denounce our Corporate rigged electoral system, the longer we will remain in Iraq and the longer our entire country will rot.

Lesseroftwoevilism R.I.P. 2008!

No matter who our President is, we need to do more as citizens to talk about what is going on in Iraq. We can't have democratic citizens making judgements about the war while still thinking it is revenge for 9/11. The President effectively mislead the American public to the point where 67% of the population thought Iraq was involved with 9/11. We still have work to do in terms of repairing the truth about what is going on.

Obama wasn't a Senator so didn't vote on the Iraq issue BUT, he was very vocal in his opposition to the war from the beginning. The idea of McCain in the white house is just plain terrifying to me. 100 MORE YEARS IN IRAQ? Uhm, I will have to vote for Obama if he gets the nod. Hillary, I just don't think I'll be able to do it, I just can't. She was all about NAFTA until it became unpopular, just like she was all about Iraq until it became unpopular. If people thought Kerry was a flip-flopper, wait til the GOP gets ahold of Billary...

I heard Obama say that he would have the troops out of Iraq in 16 months. That's on of the few concrete statements I've heard from him. I'm hoping that if he's (s)elected, he will suprise us in good ways. I know Clinton won't.

The rest of the party elite has to get behind Obama if the Kennedy endorsement is to have any clout.

Nothing will get the US out of Iraq other than military defeat. We are in there, have always been in there, for geopolitical reasons: whoever has primary influence over the petroleum and gas resources of the Middle East will be the one who can maintain world hegemony. But what the US geostrategists haven't taken into consideration is: the exhaustion of the US military due to imperial overstretch, the exhaustion of the American people due to confusion (carefully arranged by government and mass media), overwork, general demoralization. We have invested $500 million in by far the largest embassy we have anywhere in Baghdad. We have at least fourteen military bases which are meant to be permanent. I repeat: we will not leave Iraq until we are driven out of the country. And that will happen within the next few years.

I agree with Kristina40. Hillary is the perfect weather vane. She voted for the war for political expediency, and then was against it when it became unpopular. I just can't stomach voting for someone like that. At least Obama was vocal against it before it happened - he could have easily jumped on the bandwagon thinking he might run for President one day. Yes, he's wrong to not vote to defund the war, but it's far less of a sin that starting the war in the first place. And yes, he's somewhat of a corporate hack like all the rest, but we have no choice at this point, we're stuck with a flawed political system at this time. I'm getting ready for Super Tuesday here in California and I'm probably going to vote for Obama.

I think that we could do worst than get behind Obama. Do you really want McCaine?

"Isn't it disturbing that Sen. Clinton has received more money than any other candidate of either party from the big defense contractors, according to a report on the Huffington Post?"
That line says it all.

Sorry, but "from the beggining" is garbage, since it effectively came to an end when he voted to fund the war that he previously had been against.

Both the front-runners are for the war, with the only difference being degree of enthusiasm. I will not support either one.

I agree with everything that was said about Hillary, but Obama is no shining star either. He praises Reagan, the chief architect behind the destruction of the middle class. He echoes Republican talking points that deal with Social Security and plays the "Bush Lite" macho role when talking about terrorism. I don't believe either of these candidates has what it takes to roll back the extremist, corrupt and detrimental policies of the Bush administration.

Among other things Obama promises to add 100,000 troops to US military and step up US intervention in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with a focus on Waziristan. To even hint that Obama (remember here he worked AGAINST anti-war candidate Ned Lamont and FOR war hawk Joe Lieberman in their political contest) is any sort of anti-war candidate you have to have your head in the sand. Remember also that he voted FOR the mendacious war criminal Condoleeza Rice to of all things the office of Secretary of State.

Now let's talk about Iraq.

"I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq."
- Barack Obama

Obama's handlers and supporters place considerable emphasis on the claim that the junior senator from Illinois has voiced a "consistent position against the war" and (by extension) the Middle East. The assertion has some technical accuracy; Obama has publicly questioned the Bush administration's case for war since the fall of 2002. But serious scrutiny of his "antiwar position" shows that the supposedly "pragmatic" and "non-ideological" Obama speaks in deferential accord with the doctrine of empire.

Consistent with his denial and embrace of Washington's imperial ambitions, Obama has refused to join genuinely anti-war forces in calling for a rapid and thorough withdrawal of troops and an end to the occupation of Iraq. In a critical November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama's call for "a pragmatic solution to the real war we're facing in Iraq" included repeated references to the need to "defeat" the "insurgency"—a goal that means continuation of the war.

Obama's November speech to the CCGA advocates a vaguely timed Iraq "scenario" in which "U.S. forces" might remain in the occupied state for an "extended period of time." Obama advances a "reduced but active [U.S. military] presence" that "protects logistical supply points" and "American enclaves like the Green Zone" (site of one of the largest and most heavily militarized "embassies" in history) while "sending a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in the region." U.S. troops "remaining in Iraq" will "act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists." This is part of what Obama meant when he told a fawning David Brooks that, "the U.S. may have no choice but to slog it out in Iraq."

At one point in his CCGA oration, Obama had the audacity to say the following in support of his claim that U.S. citizens support "victory" in Iraq: "The American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded in the streets of Fallujah."

This was a spine-chilling selection of locales. Fallujah was the site for a colossal U.S. war atrocity. Crimes included the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the targeting of ambulances and hospitals, and the practical leveling of an entire city—in April and November 2004. The town was designated for destruction as an example of the awesome state terror promised to those who dared to resist U.S. power. Not surprisingly, Fallujah is a leading symbol of U.S. imperialism in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is a deeply provocative and insulting place for Obama to choose to highlight American sacrifice and "resolve" in the occupation of Iraq.

It gets worse. Obama has repeatedly voted to spend billions on the illegal invasion since his arrival in the U.S. Senate. He inveighs against the "Tom Hayden wing of the Democratic Party" and has told congressional Democrats they would be "playing chicken with the troops" if they dared to actually (imagine) de-fund the Cheney-Bush "war."

Obama has repeatedly and absurdly claimed that the illegal invasion was launched with the "best of democratic intentions."

He praises U.S. military personnel for their "unquestioning" "service" in Iraq and (despite numerous U.S. atrocities there) for "doing everything we could ever ask of them."

His belated calls for withdrawal are hedged by numerous statements indicating that an Obama White House would maintain a significant military presence in and around Iraq for an indefinite period of time. And Obama has refused to support taking a reckless (possibly even nuclear) U.S. military assault on Iran off the table of acceptable U.S. foreign policy options.

Barack Obama reacts to the world's response to imperialism in precisely the same way as his counterparts; he proposes more war. Obama wants to add almost one-hundred thousand new troops to the U.S. military, to alleviate the shortage of manpower that Iraq attrition has wrought. In his speech to the Woodrow Wilson Center, Obama gave away their destination: Waziristan. Obama wants a more aggressive approach to the so-called "war on terror," to take "the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

So what we have in Barack Obama is an alternative War Party, planning an alternative War. He has told us so, and we should believe him. He is no peace candidate, and goes out of his way to prove it.

John Edwards just dropped out and with his exit went the only chance the Democrats had to win back the presidency. Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a reactionary Republican disguised as a Democrat and reminds me very much of the character Livia in "I, Claudius". If this is what the Democratic party has come to, let it disappear.

Hillary states now that she will have the troops out of Iraq in 60 days. She has not elaborated a great deal on that issue.

As long as Hillary maintains her health, and barring a depression, and there is an election, Hillary Clinton will be our next president. I guarantee it. She is the chosen one by the neo-cons who actually run this country. It's time for a Democrat. McCain will be the Republican choice and he will not win the general election.

It is 500 to 1, that neither Obama or Edwards will be Hillary's chosen running mate. Edwards may have a cabinet post. There is a slim chance it could be Bill, but I doubt that also. I don't have a clue yet of who else may be the VP choice.

That's how it is, we progessive thinkers have little power as yet, we may never have much, unless after a depresion there are any of us left.

I'm with Kristina40 and bidelo. I just can't vote for a right-wing war hawk who's every move is calculated political utility (if she's nominated, she'll likely run against a war nut in McCain, but I still won't vote for her). A candidate has to offer more than the "d" word opposed to the "r" word. I think I speak for a lot of independents who won't vote for her but are willing to give Obama a try. Whoever you vote for, dems, don't vote for Clinton because you believe racists won't vote for Obama, therefore lessening his chances in November. That would be self-fulfilling prophecy at its most pathetic.

It is heartening to see so many beginning to expose the myth of Barak Obama being such an antiwar candidate...and let us not forget, in the midst of a stream of anti-Clinton outbursts from the centrists who call themselves leftists, that Kennedy's endorsement of Obama may be more an anti Clinton expression that a pro Obama one. This feud is between the Kennedy position as the number one political family in America and their visualisation of the Clinton usurpation of that position.

I simply cannot get over how the sordid tactics of the Obama wing have forced a Green supporter to a defense of Hillary and Bill Clinton. The simple truth is that a vote for the presidency should be based upon real experience and track record, and while Senator Clinton can be found wanting in that regard on far too many fronts, at least she has a damn record!

Im still voting Nader......

You're right Kem, it will take a depression in this country to change anything significant politically. Then it can go one of two ways, like Germany or like America (i.e., the New Deal). I believe Obama would buckle up and do the latter, but I may be wrong. Better than McCain, however.

I agree Jetsom, there may be some racism, but I don't think it's enough to have a real effect. And we can't just keep nominating white men, we have to break through one day, and now is that day.

Obama had Joe Lieberman as his mentor and looks up to Ronald Reagan. He wants to bomb Iran and Pakistan. That's enough for me. I won't vote for him or Hillary. I'll vote Green.

What may be good is the possibility of competition for the remaining 1/4 of Democtratic voters who are progressive , in which strong commitments are made to get out of Iraq, invest in sustainable energy, and reform the current extremity of predatory capitalism. I think Edwards did this for the sake of the country and the all too screwed up Democratic party.

People desperate for an end to the Bush presidency forget that the ruling class controls the government. They so want to believe that voting for Democrats will change things that they close their eyes to all evidence.

Obama threatening to bomb Pakistan pushed me over. Then Clinton criticizing him not for threatening a US ally, but because he didn't threaten to use nuclear bombs!!

And we have posters here claiming that one or the other is "progressive".

(And yes, I know the US shouldn't be supporting Mussaraf. The point is that we are, and Obama threatened to bomb them. Way to stabilize a nuclear country, Democrats).

This is probably one of the most important discussions we can have. I agree with all that chlamor and bakinin say.

Kem Patrick: Please tell me why you think Hillary is a Neocon?

Hillary's position on Iraq has infuriated me too, but we don't know where she really stands because she has no choice but to play unscrupulous politics like everyone else. However, I have many times felt that she should simply stand-up and say "I'm a Liberal and proud of it!". But we all know how that would play in this country.

Ultimately, you must decide whether you trust her political instincts, because she and her political machine are the only hope we have. It's a classic cup half-full or half-empty situation.

I look back to the Clinton years and see their many failings too, but given the political reality of the time they did very well for the American people. There is NO debate that they would be far better than Bush. Of course how COULD anyone be worse that Bush. God help us, we may not have seen the worst yet.

Correction: There is NO debate that they will be better than Bush.

With Obama or Hillary, you still will have Bush's war policies.

The neo-cons who rule us, want Hillary Clinton and that's their call. That's how it is.

If we get run over by a concrete truck, we either die or end up in the hospital. Facts are facts, no matter how much we may not like it.

Hillary has a great deal of experience -- experience in voting for war and empire, surrendering to corporations and Republicans, talking up expansion of the military industrial complex, and reassuring Wall Street she will be a better friend than Bush ever was.

If Hillary is the nominee, it will be easy for me to support Ralph again. If Obama somehow makes it, that will be a harder call.

You could only say that the neocons want Hillary if you believed that she supports their policies. With her votes on the AUMF and the Revolutionary Guards one certainly has some basis for that.

But I have been there, and have since changed my mind. Keep in mind what's happened in this country and you will understand why the situation is so dire on many fronts, and why it will be so difficult to change direction.

As we all know the ruling cabal consists of an alliance of neocons (Cheney et al) and Christian Zionists (Bush et al). A perfect storm of mutual self-interest occured with the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Don't forget that this action was supported by 80% of Americans.

Read the AUMF: The preamble is pure (unsubstantiated) rubbish, but the balance of the document is very cleverly worded such that if you didn't vote for it you would be marginalized to the position of not willing to allow the Prez to take action to protect America from imminent threat. With hindsight we know that the document was a clever deception from start to finish, and that the President had NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of "liberating" Iraq, but instead was intent on a long-term occupation (for control of oil, or more specifically to break OPEC so that they could not use the oil weapon to blackmail us again).

As for her position on the Iran's Revolutionary Guard. That resolution has to do with SANCTIONS not WAR. Edwards pointed out, quite rightly that it could be used as a first step.

The other aspect of the occupation of Iraq has to do with supporting Israel's uncompromising position on the West Bank. Bush's Evangelical supporters are religious zealots who believe that Israel has a Divine right to ALL of the West Bank. This fits in nicely with the hard-line position of successive Likud regimes (Natanyahu, Sharon, Ohlmert)in Israel. The continued existence of regimes in Iraq, Syria,Iran, and Saudi Arabia that supported a just peace in Palestine were a threat to both America's and Israel's hegemony in the region. Israel's very existence is due to Britain's need for free access to mid-east oil.

My faith in the Clinton's rests on Bill's genuine efforts to sue for peace, which Bush brazenly and forcefully abandoned when he took office. In his stupendous ignorance and arrogance he thought he had a better way to deal with the Palestinians and their supporters.

Even though Bush's Machaivellian plan for "peace" (by killing anyone who opposed him) was not well understood in this country in 2000. The Saudi's knew EXACTLY what he would do. Hence 9/11.

And the rest is history.

Electile Dysfunction: The inability to get excited about any of the candidates.

two elections ago ralph nader warned us, and was excoriated for it, that descending into racial/gender politics is foolish and counter productive. our focus should be on improving everyone's rights as citizens and human beings. small wonder that the dems have ignored all his warnings. a prophet without honor in his own land. typical. my ticket is kucinich/nader or nader/kucinich - peace /justice -justice/peace. write it in. . .

How can anyone justify supporting the 'Queen of Sleaze' for president?

She and her husband are supported by the same money and political interests that put Cheney and Bush in power.

The threats made by Bill to bolt the Dems if Hillary does not get the nod should give everyone pause about where her interests lie.

People of Faith can vote for Nun of the above.

The really relevant question is: can she beat the Republican nominee.

It does not matter that she is better than voting for a Republican if her winning the nomination means that we will be electing a Republican in November.

Please tell me why so many conservatives are excited by the idea of running against her. Could it be that they think she will lose? Are they correct? What do people think?

Calling Hillary the "Queen of Sleaze" is not very illuminating to the discussion. Justify it, if you can. Unsubstantiated pejoratives makes you sound like a Bushie. You don't want people to thnk that, do you?

As for people of "faith": religious zealots, whether they be Christian or Muslim distort issues for their own narrow self-interest. Personally, based upon their disasterous record in dealing with contentious issues, I am not interested in their opinions whatsoever.

SET YOU FREE__ Agreed, Hillary, although far from perfect, is our best chance to get something done for this country. Have many of you Clinton bashers forgotten that our country was not in an endless unnecessary war or occupation and our budget steadily got better for eight years during Bills presidency? We would have a different country today if we could have continued on a course of diplomacy and fiscal sanity. Our country was a respected nation during Clinton`s years but we have lost all of that. If anyone likes what we have now, vote for the Repug candidate or Teddy`s pick, Obama, and watch the Repugs rear him up. If you are sick of lies, war, debt, cronyism, religious prattle, divisiveness, and incompetence, vote for Clinton and the country.

I'm not sure that Repugs (I like that Kernel!) ARE anxious to run against Hillary, but I am sure they want Obama to get the nomination. Just think of the scurrilous slogans: "Obama. Osama What's the difference?" or "poor blacks created the housing crisis, you're going to let them run our economy?", "He's a Muslim, and worse a Kenyan, look at the mess they've created in their own country.", "a son of poor white trash and a black father who absconded, right, just what we need to run the country!". Of course, all that's rubbish, but look what they did to Kerry.

Will Hillary suffer the same fate? Of course she will. But she and Bill prevailed over these lying, greedy, unscrupulous, prudes for 8 years, and Bill left office with a 70% approval rating!

I think I've got all the points, let's see if I can tally it all up:

1)Progressives "should" listen to Ted Kennedy; 2)Thatcher
3)Holbrooke; 4)The DOD/Pentagon waste coupled with "big defense contractors" donations
equals = 5) high expectations for return results from candidate, so it goes the same for,
6) Wall Street because Clinton is a puppet; 7)Experience = cave in, and sell out
8)Bill Clinton examples of success also = guilt by association
and the kicker, 9)Craven support for Bush.

Now that we've got all the negative associations with Clinton out of the way, could the progressive writer(s)
go into detail about what the alternative candidate brings to the table? Obama's points in the argument
were:1) Illinois senate record, 2)anti-Iraq war statements, which seems intended to conclude as,
he isn't swayed by a nutty, old strategic advisor lurking behind the curtain, or connected to or supportive
of budget increases for DOD, doesn't have connections with Wall Street, or other guilt by association
thing-a-ma--doodles, like, say, neo-liberal interventionalism.

Equally, the author left out that Ted Kennedy was most of all moved by Obama's crowd appeal. Kennedy didn't
quite label Obama as such. Maybe it was a combination of Kennedy and his niece arguing all the candidates were
very much the same, in deed and action, but what stood out most about Obama was his, well, crowd appeal. While
crowd appeal is never intended to speak directly about the issues, it still can reach you on an individual level
-and it is a real big plus for getting everyone on the bandwagon. It appears to be a very impressive attribute.
While Obama may turn out to be every bit as Thatcher-esqe as Clinton is purported to be, he's got charisma and
charm, and he reaches across the isle (how's that for doublespeak?). People are intended to vote for the candidate
that best moves them --regardless.

Finally: The progressive "should" ... X, Y, and Z!
The tyranny of should is a powerful tool

You can vote for McCain, Hillary, or Obama, but don't worry, you are still getting a republican.

I like BENDOVERCRATS (thanks nathan!) I'll be using that one for sure!

Take This 40-Question Quiz: "Hillary or Barack???"
(My Score Was Barack 40, Hillary 0)

Whose campaign runs like the country should run?

Who believes in a transparent government?

Who will tell the truth if they do something wrong?

Who trusts the public to be able to handle the truth?

Who values advisors who disagree?

Who respects and welcomes opposing points of view?

Who won't hurry into war?

Who will resist the pressures of special interests and big money?

Whose family will be a credit to (and a delight in) the White House?

Whose tenure will reflect most positively upon America?

Who is liked and respected by all members of Congress and the Supreme Court?

Who can explain confusing issues to the American public?

Who can we believe when we hear conflicting stories?

Who is the least partisan candidate?

Who has the most global perspectives?

Who has an audacious vision of where to go, and a detailed plan for how to get there?

Who has the leadership and executive skills to solve even our biggest problems?

Whose example inspires us all to make personal sacrifices for the common good?

Who will guide us thoughtfully through national emergencies, tragedies, and catastrophes?

Who inspires our youth to greater effort, contribution, and productivity?

Who are national and world leaders eager to work with?

Who is it impossible not to like and admire?

Who do we most want to see succeed?

Who can heal our many divisions?

Who holds to moral principles under pressure?

Who has sound judgment under pressure?

Who reaches out in friendship to all foreign leaders and ordinary citizens?

Who will bind up the nation's wounds?

Who can be counted on to defend us wisely from those who would do us harm?

Whose leadership inspires all the world's peoples?

Who will move citizens of all ages and backgrounds toward greater civic involvement?

Who is the most intellectually broad-banded?

Who has the best "people skills"?

Who understands minority perspectives?

Who can offer global leadership toward solutions to common problems?

Who can sell tough solutions to the American public?

Who do Republicans not mind losing to?

Who inspires the confidence of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike?

Who do I look forward to listening to, weekly or more often, for the next eight years?

Who has the potential to become America's greatest President, in her time of greatest need?

"Obama had Joe Lieberman as his mentor and looks up to Ronald Reagan. He wants to bomb Iran and Pakistan. That's enough for me. I won't vote for him or Hillary. I'll vote Green."

This is just one of many false comments posted today. Obama's mentors in the Senate have been Sen. Durbin and Sen. Kennedy. He talked about Reagan's ability to inspire - not about his policies. He does not want to bomb anyone but cannot afford to go as far as Kucinich and have a chance of being elected. I have been a supporter since he was in the Ill. Senate and know him to be unabashedly progressive but also pragmatic. Do all of you Nader/etc. supporters indeed want 4 more years like the last eight? That's what you'll get if you continue your devisive ways. Obama is our only chance for real and lasting change!

We have been brainwashed into wanting politicians to say what we want to hear. There's a big difference between wish and reality. That's why I do not want to begin counting my chickens before they are hatched. There are so many unpredictables and veils beyond which I cannot see now. However, what I do know now is that I am strongly inclined for Obama. I have known the Clintons long enuff that I will not be deceived by their unreliable promises.

If women vote for Hillary BECAUSE she is a women, isn't that a good reason that women should not be allowed to vote, PERIOD. This comment is made in jest, but it is the lowest form of intelligence displayed by some of the smartest among them. How sad to see it. Do some women really believe that it matters so much to just have ANY WOMAN? And Hillary, a military-industrial-machine hawk, to boot. Women for killing, line up behind Hillary. Women who support US domination of the world, line up behind Hillary. The rest of you know Obama IS different and speaks of a higher Truth. Whether or not he can actually deliver is not really up to him. It is up to us to pressure our senators and representatives to change their corrupt ways too.

"...just stack the bodies outside the door. Who'll be the last to die for a mistake?"

Bruce Springsteen

Thank you Peoria Teacher for your sane comments.

I have very little interest in USA politics because American people are just media driven, they just believe the written word, RIGHT OR WRONG. However this article states the bleak truth and no comment is necessary !