It's all part of the great "rightward" heave-ho again. If not Kucinich, then Edwards. If not Edwards then Obama. If not Obama, then Hillary. It's like a great machine that pulls the middle-class and working-poor always further from its interests.

Until I can get an explanation why Obama supported Liebermann over the Lamont in CT (in 2006), and a better read on whether he's another AIPAC/crypto-neocon, neither he nor Hillary deserve the throne.

Would you rather have McCain as president? With Rudy as AG?

Look, I share your frustration with the rightward shift, I really do, but no way in hell am I going to stay home come the general election and allow the Right get McCain elected.

I would have been happy with Edwards.

"Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grass roots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election. Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."
_Barack Obama 10.26.06
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/10/26/lamont_gets_lift_from_obama_lieberman_campaigns_with_landrieu/

It is rather pathetic, no?

Electoral politics in a banana republic. Some people just don't get it. The game is rigged. The opposition is the ruling elite.

People in the streets is how progress has been made in the past. Why would it be any different today?

Several groups have put out a call to attend meetings in Minneapolis on February 9 and 10 to discuss the September 1-4, Republican National Convention mass actions.

Visit http://protestrnc2008.org to note details.

I too am mourning Edwards.

It is like a sledgehammer in the gut.

All the hopes of a president that would represent the people: a decent man who spoke for those who have no voice.

It is a very sad commentary that Edwards was blocked out by the media.
It is an indictment on the people of America that they turned aside someone who fought for the poor.

It is an indictment on the blacks and women who could not see beyond their race and gender,and will nominate someone who will get beat by McCain, and result in more republicans presidencies.

I hope all you women and blacks will be happy now!

This may seem like hopeful denial, but the buzz on Edwards' blog is that he didn't "end" but "suspended" his campaign. And as long as he doesn't endorse anyone else, there's the possibility he'll re-ignite or be a draft pick at the convention. Therefore, all his supporters should still vote for him. My CA ballot had already been mailed, and I'm glad to be counted as an Edwards supporter. It's one thing for us to look at the votes of Democrats for a black or a woman, but the general election is a whole different animal. It's not difficult to speculate that the Obama/Billary media circus was either orchestrated or abetted by corporate types who want the most controversial candidate to go up against a white male Republican. It's what I thought last summer and it's what seems to be happening.
VOTE FOR EDWARDS! He still matters.

Here's a freebie for the Obama campaign.

In the next head-to-head with the billary Clinton's, Obama should say: "My campaign represents the audacity of hope, while yours represents the audacity of hype!

Go Gravel, Go Mckinney!

JOHN EDWARDS REALLY JOHN BACKWARDS

VOTED FOR ILLEGAL INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN.......STRIKE 1
VOTED FOR ILLEGAL INVASION OF IRAQ..............STRIKE 2
VOTED FOR ILLEGAL U.S. PATRIOT ACT..............STRIKE 3

Senator Hussein Obama
best friend of 15 years is suddenly uhh not his friend...

Paul B. has hit the <> points it's a shame that Hussein is for
all the old - white male PNAC- CFR - TRI-LATERAL COMMISSIONs objectives

MLK would be sick to his stomach...

Last night the usual pundits were speculating about whether Edwards supporters would go to Clinton or Obama. Is there really a question about this? Edwards the more anti-corporate Hillary choice, so why would it be an advantage to her? The usual idiots are too insulated inside MSM beltway or they are pathetically trying to desperately steer consensus.
Obama is typically the lesser of 2 evils.

HILLARY and OBAMA are NOT ALIKE. The biggest difference.... HIllary will lose to John McCaine. At least with Obama there will be the possibility of winning the White House back.

One of the most disturbing things in recent weeks has not been the real news, but the way that inaccurate facts and misinformation has steadily crept into these discussions. I question whether it is only laziness, not fact-checking, or part of a plan to misinform/mislead/lie? (a plan taken out of the Bush/Rove playbook?)
Thank you Leftk for correcting the misinformation about Obama's support of Lamont.
Paragraf22-i had the same response and feeling about Edwards. Another example is his being slammed (unfairly in my opinion)in these posts for the money he made as a trial lawyer. Many forget that his clients were victims and he fought on their behalf against the large and powerful, and that he helped them get their just compensation. And yes he made money at the same time. Wouldn't we all? Also agree about the media circus obama/billary as the dream candidate for the repugs.
Oscar: perhaps some fact-checking might lead you to a different conclusion as to a breakdown of who has actually been supporting Clinton and Obama. Do you really want to blame our current situation on blacks and women? Sounds like you are a white male? Don't let your frustration cloud your thinking.

On most domestic issues, Obama is either no different from Clinton, the neocon centrist, or he actually makes proposals that challenge her from the right. See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser

As you'll read in this article, one of Obama's economic advisors believes in partial privatization of social security and the other is so center-right that he was the subject of a flattering article by conservative pundit George Will.

WHY THIS KUCINICH VOTER IS NOW RELUCTANTLY BACKING OBAMA

1. Hillary is a warmonger, and will bomb nations first, ask questions later. Barack will talk to their leaders before he bombs them, but might learn enough in the talking to pull back from bombing them.

2. Barack supports unfortunate notions such as the Free Market Economy, a continued military presence in Iraq, a cap of an already astronomical 35% on credit card interest rates, and a woefully inadequate national health care plan. But he does listen to people, and can be influenced to change, unlike Hillary who does everything in secret, away from public scrutiny, cosulting only with lobbyists and corporate types.

3. Barack has an inclusive spirit, Hillary a triangulating, me-first spirit.

I don't have 12 reasons, but these are enough for me.

What it boils down to is that people who read and reply on Commondreams are not the mainstream, and the mainstream is interested in appearances only. The mainstream of America doesn't question, and they don't want to see that our country was lost when the 2000 election was stolen. The mainstream want to believe that they are being protected from terrorists, that we have good health care, that children who are left behind deserve to be, that New Orleans isn't worth saving, and that there are decent people in politics. In this climate, if you are a front-runner, then you probably aren't competent, on any level, to lead a country. It is VERY depressing, especially since the main issue facing us isn't even being addressed: Global Warming and Climate Change. It breaks my heart to see what this country has become since the election of the first Bush, the republican presidency of Bill Clinton, and the criminal debacle of this moron.

Don't believe the hype. And don't pull another Charlie Brown. The democratic party is again offering the football for you to kick. As you approach you are thinking, maybe this time the democratic party is not going to pull the ball away. Really. And when you find yourself flat on your ass, remember to act surprised.

Republicans will hold you 3 feet under water, the democrats will only hold you one foot under water. You might think they are being more sympathetic, but it only takes two inches of water to drown.

I'm voting Green Party (or Ralph Nader) and I don't regret my previous votes for third parties. As long the democrats aspire to be Republican Light, they will not get my vote.

I wish that at least one of the front runners would have spoken up for the democratic process and publicly questioned why candidates were excluded from the debates. That is when they lost my vote.

so it goes...

Hmmm, how is it Obama supported BOTH Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont?? He praises Ronald Reagan, backs Bush, is a warmonger, has Lieberman as his mentor (and to add insult to injury, he's Dick Cheney's cousin :() It's a shame the most competent candidate, John Edwards, has withdrawn. I'll vote Green. I've changed my party affiliation FROM Democrat since they don't want to give us a choice for a decent candidate.

If you were a Dem running for Congress, whose "coattails" would you trust to help you rather than hurt you? One BIG reason for supporting Obama is the effect he might have on sweeping in a larger Dem majority in Congress. Hillary? Likely the opposite.

OK, this is getting so boring (again.) Must be elections looming. All the talk about being against the war, murder and everything else, and now 99% of you are going to vote for more of the same. How can you do it?

Oh well, I'll peek in on you after the election when you're either going to be: A. crying once more that your "progressive" party lost, or that, (if they win) B. you'll be crying because they took your campaign contributions, but are still carrying on the war just like the current murderers. Or of course, if Ralph runs, you'll be blaming HIM for your loss again.

I'm outta here.

lillulu, what Obama said was that while he didn't agree with most of what Reagan stood for, he observed that Reagan did inspire optimism in people. Which he did. That didn't include me; I knew him too well, being from California. So please don't pull the right wing stunt of distorting Obama's words for your own ends.

I too am sorry to see Edwards out, and it would be great if he reemerges. I only hope his departure doesn't help Hillary. I will never vote for her. I am deeply offended by that disgusting stunt she and Bill pulled in South Carolina. Made me think of the Willy Horton ads, done covertly. Then she turned around and pulled a saccharine "we must keep this political fight clean and about the issues". She doesn't care who she hurts or takes down to win. She, like Bush, creates divisiveness. We've had enough of that.

kathyodat

kathyodat

mlee,

Most of the CD people are smartstream, we champion same issues that the mainstream champions but we're not as easily fooled by age-old promises and platitudes.

Ban on torture, affordable health care, real estate costs, civil liberties, etc. are mainstream values. It has required massive energy inputs (billions of dollars, a corporate-run media, etc.) in order not so much to turn people away from these values, but to turn them onto politicians who are antithetical to them.

leftk,

http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

Note that this article is from the same news source as yours, but 6 months earlier. It is indicative of Obama's preferences. If he could have picked between an anti-war newcomer (who got the nomination) or someone conjoined at the hip to AIPAC, a staunch supporter of Bush's war (and McCain), Obama chose the latter.

How many other neocons would Obama prefer, if he had a preference?

The Lamont/Lieberman race, for me, is a perfect illustration of the problem with Obama. He'll do or say whatever is expedient, depending on his purpose. He'll support Lamont, he'll support Lieberman (his mentor). When he talks about "reaching across the aisle" this is exactly the type of maneuver he's referring to.

At this moment in history, the Democratic party needs spine. So, who is the great agent for change in the Democratic Party? The one guy--the JFK of the 21st century--who takes triangulation to a new level.

If Edwards is still on the ballot in Mass, I'll vote for him. It's wrong that the majority of Americans have had their options so restricted, when there's still nine months before the election.

We've turned into a sad excuse for a democracy.

paragraf22 mentioned that Edwards has suspended his campaign, and wondered what that means. I heard that he did this in order to get more of the public funds he's already qualified for. I imagine if he ended his run, he wouldn't be able to get that money, which will help him pay off debts incurred by his candidacy.

I'm still astonished that smart people here think Hillary is worse than any Republican. If you want more right wing judges, more drilling and mining in national parks/refuges, more homeless and poor, then by all means, vote for someone who has zero chance of being elected, or better yet, vote for John McCain. I'm sure he'll deliver all of the above, and more.

No candidate is perfect, no political system is perfect. If you take the position that voting for the lesser of two evils is your option, your only other option is not to participate at all. There's something to be said for working within the system, and whether Obama or Hillary is the nominee, we progressives have a duty to force them to listen to us. Your local and state reps are equally, if not more, important for you to support and/or challenge to listen and act upon your concerns.

This community is great, but we are a minority voice. Kucinich and Edwards did provide us with hope, but even with them out of the presidential race, the issues they raised and supported are still there, and it's our duty to hold the eventual nominee to the challenges we expect them to take.

Edwards has said Obama isn't experienced enough, and Hillary is divisive. As for me, I'll take divisive, and laugh in the face of the conservatives who will go nuts if/when Hillary is elected. A woman president is a huge cultural change, considering that it's still ok to be sexist (see the aftermath of "Hillary's tears"). And I think having Bill Clinton working in some capacity in a new administration would be a huge asset, both domestically and internationally. How ironic that the formerly disgraced president would be in a position to bring our country back from the moral terpitude of BushCo. I love irony, doesn't everyone?

>> Reagan did inspire optimism in people

Quit spreading this myth...

...and his many others such as "GuvMint" is too big, taxes are all bad, and prayer in the schools is desirable. These Republican platitudes need to be questioned and exposed for the simple-minded lies that they are.

Reagan was reprehensible. And optimism built on lies isn't optimism. The right word is deception.

Why don't yall back a REAL candidate? Cynthia McKinney for president. Green Party '08. www.runcynthiarun.com

Enough of this lesser of two evils. Quit picking evil, start picking GOOD.

dmgreenaz, it's true. People weren't paying attention to what Reagan was doing, only to what he was saying. I was there in California while he trashed the state economy and got elected - TWICE! But he sounded great. People want to feel optimistic and empowered and he fed them that.

Unfortunately, the public shows the reflexes of an earthworm over the word "tax". When I tell people they can have single payer health care for a 3% tax increase they say "No way". But when I tell them what they get for it and with no other costs, they say they can go for that. Well, the Ministry of Propaganda is making sure they don't get to hear the true story. They get to hear government run socialized medicine instead. It appears that so far, they are trusting the Ministry of Propaganda for their information.

Obama is saying what people want to hear, and I wouldn't trust him an inch just for that, but I like his past history, while Hillary's past history sucks. And her twisting his words and changing his meaning is deeply offensive to me. She's devious and untrustworthy. Is Obama? We don't know yet. But I'm willing to take a chance on him. If I'm wrong, at least he's no worse than the rest of them. And maybe I'm right.

I would rather vote for Edwards, I think he's had a conversion about eradicating poverty. We need a middle class, which is becoming extinct. We also need a voting public with common sense, but maybe with a few more economic blows, they will find some.

kathyodat

Paul,
I disagree with your analysis. Hillary and Obama are political twins.

Dig this:
1. BOTH have many advisors from the Clinton Administration. How is that change for Obama? And in fact, Obama goes back to Carter and is taking advice from Zbig Brzezinski. Remember that guy? He's the fool who got us involved in Afghanistan and we were training all these jihad nuts. You know some of the thugs who funded the gang who attacked the WTC on 9/11.
Yeah, its real bright for Obama to be listening to Zbig. Wow. The man is so change-like.

2. BOTH have failed to oppose nuclear power and Obama is actually more amenable to it since he's taken a couple of hundred thousand dollars in Exelon. Where's the change in that, Paul? Nuclear is old school; been there, done that. Forbes magazine called nuclear power the greatest financial disaster in U.S. History.

3. BOTH have many, major endorsements from corporate lobbyists; the ever growing lists can be viewed on the rollcall site. Stop. I know you're saying Obama doesn't take money from lobbyists. I didn't say that. These are endorsements. They like Obama and see him as a player. The way Obama does it is take the contribution from the spouse...it's the same as taking it from the lobbyist.

4. BOTH are free traders. Is there any doubt we need fair trade? Wouldn't the change candidate, Obama, be in favor of that? He's not.

5. BOTH favor the broken health care system. Both would have HMOs run the same system we have now, picking at the edges then crowing about how they brought "change." BOTH are opposed to the correct solution, single payer, though when Obama had a spine he was for it. (First he was for it, before he was against it; shades of Kerry the guy from the past who endorsed him).

I could go on and on but I have other things to do.

Wake up, sheeple.

Hillary is DISGUSTING. Hillary pushes/votes/agitates for more war.

Not only did she unabashedly push for war with Iraq, and now parrots the line "The surge is working". But she berated the Bush admin for being TOO SOFT on Iran, and berated Obama for saying he would TALK to the Iranians. Not talking to them means doing all you can to keep them forever as an enemy.

Beware of Hillary. She is much worse than Obama. She is right in with AIPAC and Zionist Jew Rupert Murdoch. She is a neocon in Democrat clothing. I think that you should now support Obama, otherwise case you may end out with Hillary.

(P.S. The surge is not working. What is really happening is that our soldiers are engaging less, and bombing from a greatat height.
PPS. Iran is NOT a threat/problem to the U.S. in any way but merely an opportunity for deceitful warmongers.)

I am waiting to disagree with RichM ...

But I completely agree. I was going through the same process when Dennis dropped out, and decided not to back Edwards and to look to the Greens or elsewhere. The rightward move was inevitable for a corporate party. They raised more money than the Republicans, which should say enough. If Obama does win, he would be "better" than Hillary, but that does not mean he would be "good". Edwards exit should be the final straw (in my opinion) for people looking to get rid of the corporate dominance of our lives.

The rationalizing that goes on is understandable, but it needs to stop. If progressive thinkers can unite around an anti-corporate platform and get 5% for another party, hopefully the Greens, THEN we can continue working for change. I am pulling for the Greens to draft nader, but many of you know how messy that could get. Change doesn't come from simply getting votes, but building a mass movement. But a presidential election is a great way to get the movement underway.

Feb 5 I will not vote in the Dem primary, because there is only more war, more WTO, more corporate control on the ballot.

Paul Bramscher wrote: "Until I can get an explanation why Obama supported Liebermann over the Lamont in CT (in 2006), and a better read on whether he's another AIPAC/crypto-neocon, neither he nor Hillary deserve the throne."

Paul, this is simply not true. Obama initially supported Lieberman, but then supported Lamont when he became the Dem nominee for senate. BTW, Ned Lamont is currently backing Obama for president. Here's the AP story from October 26, 2006:

Lamont gets lift from Obama, Lieberman campaigns with Landrieu
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/10/26/lamont_gets_lift_from_obama_lieberman_campaigns_with_landrieu/

By Andrew Miga, Associated Press Writer | October 26, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. --Ned Lamont got a boost Thursday from one of the Democratic party's brightest rising stars, Sen. Barack Obama.

The Illinois senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate sent an e-mail message to his Connecticut supporters urging them to rally behind Lamont's challenge to three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman.

"Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grass roots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election," Obama wrote. "Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."

Obama is no more in AIPAC's back pocket than was Edwards. He has said he believes is a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Lillulu, Obama DID NOT 'praise Ronald Reagan' -- he merely accurately pointed out that Reagan caused a shift in the nation's attitudes and did it by making America hopeful again. FDR did the same thing in the 1930s as a liberal. Read what he actually said, not the Clinton talking points.

As I've said before, Obama, and even Hillary, may not be vastly different than a Republican president, but they will do some things better -- if Hillary or Barack keep even half their promises, we'll be in better shape than if McCain or Mitt keep theirs.

To all of you who plan to vote third party -- go ahead, and keep in mind as you check your selection that you're voting for another four years of Republican rule. Guess you taught the Dems, huh?

Oh, and Patrickballotintegrity -- you have the wrong screen name: you should call yourself PatrickHUSSEINballotintegrity, and don't forget to say 'hello' to your friends at the RNC.

It sounds like this guys just trying to justify in his mind the fact that he threw more money away on a political candidate than he's ever done before.

RSJ,

"Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman"
http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

Obama initially came out in favor of Liebermann, apparently finding him the better choice over Ned Lamont.

The fact that Obama felt a not-so-closet-Republican was preferable to a decidedly anti-war (at least in rhetoric) candidate speaks volumes. If given the choice, the power, Obama apparently is inclined to favor the "right" to the "left". (I can't stand that spectrum, as I've indicated elsewhere). The Dems have more in common with the Republicans -- neither of them make cohesive/coherent sense ideologically -- than with Greens, other progressives, idealistic PDA's, etc.

If Obama should get elected in '08 who would he support for various offices and cabinet positions? One who swings to the "left" or the "right"? Or, to take this discussion out of the realm of metaphor, would he support the interests of the top 1% and a one-sided policy in the Mideast, or not?

I'd like to know, because I've got a billion invested in energy projects in the Mideast. Not.

"This in fact is why we are where we are, today — the millions of stupid Democrats, who accept whatever slop is served up by the party."

No doubt with your high minded idealism you stayed home in 2004, since there is, by your logic, no difference between Republicans and Democrats, between Bush and Kerry.

What about 2000? No doubt you voted for Nader, or not at all, because you knew there was no difference between Bush and Gore. No difference at all between the two parties.

It's people like you that help ensure that Republicans stay in power.

Thanks for the McCain vote next November, RichM. I'll be thinking of you when he appoints a slew of conservative judges to every court that comes up.

Some of us whose first choices were Kucinich and Edwards may indeed not vote for president. I will. Count the coming Supreme Court openings.

A long view over the past shows Democratic and Republican complicity in a vast array of empire building. The last 8 years are more disgusting than ususal. The courts are almost as shattered as are executive and legislative bodies. My country openly tortures (I know, were we simply more discrete in the past?). Who will be the next AG? I will vote this year because in this horribly broken system I have to.

Well, since Edwards dropped out, then it's Obama for me, not Hillary. Much as I'd love to see a woman president, I don't want to see a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty over the space of an entire generation. And realistically speaking, does anybody in their right mind think that she'll be President alone? No, "Billary" will be a co-Presidency. Their campaign motto ought to be "Forward, Into the Past!" Do we really want to return to the 90's, when most of the Clintonian years of prosperity were based solely on the smoke and mirrors dot-com boom, which became the dot-com bust and cost tons of people their high paying jobs? Do we really need that sort of thing again?

No, I'll take Obama. At least I can say that I've read his two books and found his voice to be refreshing and honest. I would have voted for Kucinich, then Edwards when he dropped out, so now I'm forced to resort to Choice #3, Obama, which is fine by me. At least I don't feel like I am going to be holding my nose and voting this time. That is, unless Obama's campaign suddenly implodes and Hillary becomes the default nominee after "Tsunami Tuesday" next week. Then I'm going to be very doubt ridden about voting for her in good faith.

We need a Gorbachev to preside over the death and resurection of the US.

Sigh...

Like Mr. Loeb, I will now be hoping Obma wins the nomination. Unlike him, it is not proudly or enthusiastically. I'm dating myself here but, when I watch Obama, I can't help thinking, "Where's the beef?"

My (tepid) support of Obama may not be good news for Obamamaniacs; he's my third choice after Kucinich and Edwards. So my support means his campaign is about to go down the drain.

While I'm technically supporting Obama, now, I won't be voting for him on tsunami Tuesday. I'll be voting for Kucinich. Clinton is going to win NY anyway so I might as well throw a protest vote out there.

And, for the record, if Clinton does pull out the nomination, I'll be holding my nose and voting for her in November. She sucks but you pure folks that think there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats really haven't been paying attention the last 7 years. (By your logic, there's no difference between 1,000 and 1,000,000; they're both more than 10. Dim wit that I am, there are several orders of magnitude difference ...) BTW, did I thank you naderites for GWB, lately?

Loeb is one of the most insincere people I can imagine to be promoting Obama as a sincere actor. Loeb has been a relentless flack for the Democratic Party. Always promoting the Democratic Party as the only viable vehicle for progressive politics, and then in the end always, always always, ending up rpromoting the corporate centrist that the DP's leadership ends up selecting. And now lookey here. Loeb starts off announcing his deep support of Edwards, but, by golly, he can turn on a dime and promote Obama. To suggest Obama hold policy positions substantitvely difffrent from Clinto is farcical. Clinto and Obama use a "health care plan" drawn up by the same fellow essentially. Not to mention them essentially splitting Bill Clinton's staff. Obama is younger, he's a guy, and he's Black, but there the differences end.

My views haven't changed, even if a few thousand people in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. want only corporate candidates on the ballot in '08. I see no reason to change my vote (assuming I bother voting this time) based on what others think. There's McKinney, Nader, yourself, nobody...

I find the asymmetry of compromise interesting. 8 years and Bush absolutely won't compromise an inch. 10 months away from the election and progressives are expected to compromise upwards and rightwards not once or twice, but perhaps thrice. Greens/Libertarians/Socialists/Independents/etc. -> Kucinich or Paul -> Edwards -> ???.

The paradigm of US corporate domination will not end until we transform politics as we know it. Republicans lead, and Democrats enable. I belong to a party that leads against this paradigm. I belong to the Green Party.

I will not throw away my vote to a spoiler. I'll place my vote with a courageous candidate that is no corporate whore. It could have been Kucinich. There's a chance that it could have been Edwards. There's a very slim chance that it could be Obama. I'll keep the possibility open, but it will take some convincing. Being less evil than McCain is not enough. I'm tired of hearing every four years that now is not the time to go with a third party. I'm tired of the status quo politics purchased by multinational corporations and presented to us by their media. I'm tired of sitting here typing this. I will not campaign or vote for anyone who does not get me excited about the prospect of real change.

Everyone seems to be hooked up to the same choices offered by Move on: choose your candidate: Hillary or Obama. No choice for 'neither' or 'none of the above'. Then they will proclaim which candidate their members anointed.

I didn't vote. That may well be my choice in November.

Oh, I know, "any Democrat is better then a Republican". But I see the choice more as choosing between a quick acting poison, or one that will take longer, to drive us into totalitarian government with no neo-democrcracy gloss.

There are 3rd Parties I will explore. Nader is making noises, and he's always good for a protest vote.

And protest we must, if we are truly left-wing Progressives rather than opportunists who always move to the winning campaign rather then being independent.

And, to the person who blames blacks and women for not supporting Edwards. I am a woman. I have supported Edwards for the past 4 years, and have donated more money to his campaigns then to any other in the past 50 years.

Let's all unite and get behind Nader. No more fear of fools who worry about "spoiling" the rotten to the core 2-party system that refuses to go away.

I am so tired of NPR breathlessly reporting on the Democratic/Republican candidates while U.S. troops and foreign civilians/"insurgents" continue to die because of our continuing occupation of land that does not belong to us. The 2-parties get free publicity because they have more money even though they lack any good ideas. Smaller candidates struggle and are arrogantly ignored by our money-driven media system.

The 2-party system needs to be eliminated. Our media system needs massive restructuring. These should be major priorities.

Paul Bramscher, look at the dates on the two Boston.com articles: Yours is March 31, 2006, the one where, as I stated, he initially supported Lieberman, since Lieberman was the sitting Dem Senator, and before Lamont was the Dem nominee; the date on the article I cited is October 26, 2006, seven months later, after Lamont was the official Dem nominee. So, he supported the Dem nominee Lamont in the election for Senate against the independent Lieberman.

I also don't know where all of this "Lieberman is his mentor" stuff is coming from (well, maybe Billary, of course) -- where did Obama say Lieberman was his mentor?

Paul you also wrote: "If Obama should get elected in '08 who would he support for various offices and cabinet positions? One who swings to the 'left' or the 'right'? Or, to take this discussion out of the realm of metaphor, would he support the interests of the top 1% and a one-sided policy in the Mideast, or not?"

Obama said just last night that he would have the troops out of Iraq 16 months after taking office and he would change the way we dealt with the Middle East from aggression to diplomacy. Hillary refused to say when she would bring the troops home and endorsed a policy that sounded very similar to Bush's, albeit much better articulated.

As far as cabinet appointments, I'd be willing to bet they'd be liberal, although I am a little puzzled why he voted to put Condi in as Sec. of State. The man has a long record of progressivism in Illinois; he's become a little more cautious as a US Senator, but still is generally liberal. Hillary is not: She voted for the Iraq War, to give Bush license to attack Iran, and supported a bankruptcy bill that would make it harder for average Americans to settle their debts. Add to that her strange support of a flag burning amendment and her failure to speak up against that neocon carnival to interfere in the Terri Schiavo case for political reasons -- she wouldn't come out against the GOP even when the majority of the public was with her!

Brissot, I agree with much of what you say, but don't blame Nader in 2000 for Al Gore's loss -- he actually won the electoral vote in Florida (a later full-state recount proved this) and the election, and if not for Bush's Daddy stacking the Supreme Court, and their illegal 5-4 decision, Gore would have been president. Even Al Gore does not blame Nader for his loss.

In fact, I was on Nader's email list in 2000; two weeks before the election they were telling Nader voters to vote for Gore in close states and vote for Ralph in states where Gore was way ahead. So it wasn't true that Nader was trying to be a spoiler; he was just trying to build a third party that would one day challenge the top two. He recognized that Gore would be preferable to Bush as president.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, some of the 'liberal' justices such as Stevens and Ginsburg are getting mighty long in the tooth and may retire or expire in a few years; McCain has already promised to appoint more Alitos to the bench. Think about that when you're happily voting for McKinney.

Voting for Obama, we have a chance for change and that progressive voices will be listened to, such Ralph Nader or the Green Party; if another Republican gets in, we have no chance at all.

Re Lieberman, I've long disliked his stands and gave a major keynote to the Connecticut Education Association which people said played a role in their endorsing Ned Lamont. Lamont did say nice things about Lieberman early on, but back him in the general election and came out a couple months ago backing Obama. So if you respect Lamont

Re advisors, I just helped my friend Stephen Zunes edit a piece comparing Clinton's and Obama's adviaor. Salient point--basically every one of Hillary's advisors was for the Iraq War. Every one of Obama's, including Brzeinski, was against it. I deteseted Brzenski when he was in the Carter administration, but if you've heard any of his repeated appearances on the Air America Thom Hartmann show he's clearly learned some good lessons.

Re voting, it's not the only tool for change, but you have to go with the choices available. If you don't bad things happen, like George Bush. Or the Democrats nominate worse candidates than they otherwise could. So yes, I'm a pragmatist, and I'd even vote for Hillary, because what McCain reprpesents is worse in a dozen critical ways. If Obama gets in we'll still have to push him, same with any of them.

PS--to the person in New York, please do vote because the Democratic primaries are all some form of proportionate representation (good thing) rather than winner-take-all like the Republicans

Just wondering how many on here watched/listened to ALL of the debate last night. I was struck by one thing in particular: Obama stated not only that he will pull out, and that the thinking that led us into these wars needs to be challenged, but also added -- and this is no small thing -- NO PERMANENT BASES. That's pretty impressive to me, and other than Kucinich & Gravel, I haven't heard that specificity out of a Dem candidate.

How is everyone missing the fact that Obama is the most leftward going candidate that'll have a chance, probably in the next two generations?

And, I hate to keep repeating myself, but anyone who thinks a person could get elected mayor of Artesia, New Mexico... let alone Rep or Senator or President... without kowtowing to AIPAC is so out to lunch I don't know what to say. If someone can provide me with a person that has stood up to AIPAC without having his/her political career left in ruins as a result, I would be happy to get off this.

There was a reason John Edwards didn't get media attention. He was running an anti-corporate campaign. Turns out, huge corporations aren't keen on that idea. This is pretty depressing, I'll admit, but how can so many of you go off on Obama for having the political IQ to know when to pick his battles and with whom? The point is to get elected, isn't it?

If you think Obama isn't a progressive, you should do a little more research into the man. Also, be reasonable about how the system works. This isn't to say I'd advocate for Clinton. I wouldn't. But NOW IS THE TIME to get the better representative for your views, and in this military-industrial-media atmosphere, you should be thanking Christ Almighty for the chance to have Barack Obama, because if Hillary pulls this thing out, you will have either more of the same, or, more likely, four years of posting comments on websites about how pissed you are at President McCain.

Choice is yours.

One additional note: screw Eric Alterman, and if you want to vote for Nader or McKinney I don't have any beef with you. But if you are a registered Democrat and you sit this one out because someone isn't perfect, or is smart enough to play the game, then you've left yourself with no other option and blame rests in your mirror.

RSJ, PaulLoeb,

I'm deeply troubled that the majority of the US (not just Democrats) sees Iraq as a gross blunder, built on distorted intel. and lies, and Liebermann still supports it -- to this day. Obama skipped a great many senate votes in '07 (check Project Vote Smart). If he uses a "no-show" as a way to avoid controversy, there's no reason he had to vocally support Lieberamann -- someone whose views on Iraq are far beyond the progressive and even Democratic mainstream.

Again, I remain wondering why Obama supported Liebermann despite his extreme views on Iraq/Israel/etc. Party loyalty, money, political perks, trying to court neocons, AIPAC lobby -- or perhaps underlying ideological agreement?

It's critical that people who feel compelled to drift toward Obama get that question answered, lest you bring the country into another deep abyss: such an administration would be like the Clintonian period, a brief respite between father-son despots without fundamental changes. So it becomes an enabling thing. If the Republicans didn't have Democrats as foils, a real opposition with bite and backbone would rise. In many ways, the Dems are the best thing going for Republicans. Keeps the heat far away.

Paul Bramscher:

The Liebermann thing, as I understand it, was more simple than most scenarios suggest. Liebermann was a friend and tutor, for lack of a better word. This gives me as much distaste as anyone -- I haven't liked Joe L. for a very long time. I think this comes down to personal loyalty, though the consequence of that loyalty is unpleasant.

On issues and foreign policy, there is nothing but this personal tie to give one reason to think Obama is even in the Liebermann sport, let alone league or ball park. I'm only going off everything he's said or done while in office or at a PiRG.

I've mentioned that I recently read Confucius. Among his many points of sage advice is a recurring thread: not to befriend or surround yourself with people contrary to your understanding, ethics, humanity, etc. If personal loyalty trumps ideology -- even the worst military and foreign policy blunder in our time -- what other friends has Obama accumulated, and how does he pick them?