Why This Edwards Voter Is Now Backing Obama

Tailcap, did Obama vote for Mukasey? If a Dem is elected president, we won't have more Mukasey's being sent up to Congress for approval, and we won't have more 'Scalitos' on the Supreme Court. I don't think even Hillary would do that; and I know Obama wouldn't. Maybe more Dems will find their spine with a strong liberal Dem in the presidency; it's only going to get worse under a Republican.

Oh sure, such as the "liberal" Bendovercrats that rolled over on the Mukasey appointment. On November 6 the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed the nomination of Mukasey, by a 11 to 8 vote, and sent his confirmation on to the full Senate were he got confirmed. Great big difference between the conservatives and the "liberals" huh.

Davoid wrote: "Point granted, he may be able to slowly move the direction of this country in a more liberal direction. Whoopee. Is that what you really want?"

In a word, yes.

I agree with some of your points about personal action and responsibility but, as we've seen after seven years of Bush, the president and Congress do matter -- they make the laws, they determine the economy and the international encumbrances that affect our lives directly, so I think it's vital we elect people who will represent the best interests of the average citizen.

If you want to cut the soles off your shoes and live in a tree, that's your business, until the government comes along and arrests you for trespassing on private property. That's when you might appreciate a liberal as opposed to a conservative in office, appointing the judges and making the laws. As someone once said, the personal IS the political -- you simply can't avoid it in this country.

I repeat, we all need a wider vision than this oh-so-exciting election. The planet is dying, the economy and this plutocracy are about to implode. I am not saying this country is ready for Dennis, or Dennis ready for this country. Obama has made friends in Congress, is friends with the media, is friends with the status quo. Point granted, he may be able to slowly move the direction of this country in a more liberal direction. Whoopee. Is that what you really want?

I am saying the answer to our problem of survival is not political, period. It has more to do with each individual taking personal responsibility for the entire of humanity. If Obama can inspire this nation and its mega-corporations to shed some its rugged individualism, great. At the same time, it's not up to him to do it for us. It's personal, we each are responsible, able to respond, whether we know it or not.

Maybe you think this comment is irrelevant to the election. I think the election is irrelevant to the grass-roots revolution in responsibility that is taking place world-wide, beyond the awareness of the mainstream media. This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, as David Byrne once said.

As much as I admire Dennis Kucinich's ideas, he was still one lousy presidential candidate. Between 2004 and 2007, he could have worked to establish ground-game campaign structure in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he also could have spent more time on properly 'framing' (I hate the word, but it's a fact of life in US politics) his message to reach beyond those who already agreed with him. He should have been prepared for questions about his seeing a UFO or his vegetarian diet -- he must have known the Big Media would try to nail him on trivialities like that to cast him as some kind of nut. That he didn't do any of this shows his weakness as a political candidate.

Meanwhile Obama, a progressive even before he entered politics, is a candidate who inspires people, as did FDR, JFK and MLK. There is nothing wrong with giving your supporters hope and inspiration -- it's what helps build a movement that causes change. He is also smart enough to position himself so that he is not marginalized by the Big Media, as was Dennis. He is convincing those who are not progressive, nor even political, to vote for him. He also demonstrated, during his time in the corrupt Illinois State Senate, that he can get things done and pass liberal legislation.

If Dennis had somehow been elected president in 2008 his problems would have just begun; he would have had both the GOP and half the Dems in Congress lined up against him, a replay of his term as mayor of Cleveland, and we might have had a stalemate for four years with nothing at all accomplished, except a public disgust with President Kucinich. To put it another way: were he a better politician, he might have gotten more of his House colleagues to sign on to impeaching Cheney. Unfortunately, sometimes Dennis' self-righteousness works against him.

A President Obama, who has been making friends in Congress, would not have that problem.

We all need a wider vision than this oh-so-exciting election. The planet is dying, the economy and this plutocracy are about to implode. Dennis has shown us how to threaten the status quo effectively -- far more effectively than protests, letters to Congress, all the traditional forms of social change, including dummied-up elections. Real change begins the moment we ALL start to talk about the things we really care about, when we give voice to the voiceless as Dennis is doing and will continue to do, even if he loses his congressional seat.

We all want the same things, and some of us (the so-called "idiots" we love to hate) are simply unconscious of what it is we REALLY want. As the cascade of crises increase in intensity, our goals will no longer be hidden, and survival will become defined as a world that works for all. This is the world that Dennis sees.

We are all personally responsible for this small, fragile planet. Dennis is lead goose of an entire flock of change agents — US. He parted the air for US. Now tired, fortunately still flying, he rotates to the back. The flock is still in motion, and everyone is a leader. A leader is simply someone who OWNS the desired result. Don't push your responsibility off on to some political hack, a political party, or the government. Don't deny your ability to respond. Change your life, change yourself! Increase your ability to see, speak, and act true to your deepest values, and you will save the world.

Re this article and Obama --

Granted, Obama is an impressive speaker and debater ---
However, with Kucinich and Edwards now gone, any real options in the Democratic Party --- which is close to being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party --- are gone!

Now -- you can continue to vote for a Republican/Democatic Party --
or you can consider Plan B -- which is to create some options for ourselves.

If 2000 was so fearsome as we think, where are the Democats and IRV voting?
Where is the federal program to knock out computer voting?

The only truly anti-war candidate was Kucinich ---

After that, we are begging the question --- none of them are really free from supporting the now out-of-bounds Pentagon and the Military Industrial Intelligence Complex.

Do we really belive we'll get a single-payer national health care system from either Obama or Clinton?????

Plant B, folks --- !!!

MLEE ---

QUOTE:they don't want to see that our country was lost when the 2000 election was stolen UNQUOTE

Sadly, the computers came in during the mid-1960's, so while 2000 was a very noisy election, decided by the Supremes, 2004 was an even bigger steal --- and most of our elections since the mid-1960's are in question.

See: "VOTESCAM - The Stealing of America"
by journalists Jim & Ken Collier written decades ago --
also website ---

I recall reading that in Germany in the early 1930s, several factions could have united to defeat Hitler but instead argued among themselves on their levels of ideological purity. The Nazis, of course, moved in lockstep, and it was relatively easy for them to 'divide and conquer' their squabbling opposition and take over the government completely. The various factions -- the Social Democrats, socialists, labor unions, et al -- who had been fighting each other over ideological purity could pat themselves on the back in May of 1945 that their commitment to democracy and political freedom in Germany had been rewarded, as Hitler and the Nazis were finally driven from power. That is, those paltry few who had survived the concentration camps to see that day.

brissot:

You've had 150-200 years of Democrats to prove otherwise. That party isn't "set up" ideologically to accomplish any of the things you apparently want, on the surface at least.

Bottom-line, I will not vote for a politician who supports nuclear power, the war in Iraq, who fails to offer REAL opposition to the ongoing Reagan/Bush Junta (by filibuster, impeachment, indictments, arraignments), who will not call for shutting down the School of the Americas, who fails to support single-payer, etc. etc. But I think it was the S&L debacle, the failure of the Dems to indict Bush Senior for lying about being "out of the loop" on Iran/Contra, Clinton's granting of favored nation status to China despite Tianamen Square, NAFTA, his whole handling of Yugoslavia, and total lack of interest in the genocide of Rwanda that woke me up. They offer reasonable feel-good rhetoric, but that's cheap in D.C.

Gore/Liebermann failed on several counts for me, even back in '00, and for thousands of other progressives. If you think it's our duty to compromise, rather than the Democrats' duty to offer a real opposition, you're mistaken.

Have you read a Democratic Party platform in awhile? They're woefully weak on coherence, consistency, progressive values. It doesn't at all read like the Green Ten Key Values. The Dems, on a global scale, are a reasonable choice for people whose politics are center-"right". They do not challenge Bush, they are responsible for dragging on disaster-capitalism (enabling the periodic plunder by the Rethugs).

Frankly, I'd rather have Bush as president than a slipperly DLC/Pelosi type. With Bush, at least, I know where I stand. He's not a closet enabler for the opposition. And although I can't say I remotely agree with his politics, this government has allowed me to be a loose canon for many years and never hassled me.

Bottom line, if the Dems want progressive voters they'd better add some progressive items to their platform. Will it take another 150-200 years to get Range or IRV, single-payer, the end of the Electoral College, and meaningful campaign finance reform?

I admire your passionate advocacy for the party, and I hope you're an insider, super-delegate, or hooked up with a powerful non-democratic interest (banking, MIC, corporate media, etc.) Because your advocacy of illusions would make more sense then. If you're Joe Sixpacks like me, then you're part of the continually-fooled majority. How long will the remnant middle- and working-class continue to be sold on this crap?

Same old lesseroftwoevilistic philosophies leading to a downward spiral culminating with such conservative and right-wingish candidates that Obama is coronated the most "liberal" senator of all which of course isn't saying much.

I not voting for Obama or Clinton because they are not going to end the immoral, illegal, and cruel war against Iraq. They will keep tens of thousands of troops there to do the dirty work of propping up a colonial-style puppet government for our oil profits..

Where are they on impeachment? Correct me if I'm wrong (admittedly, I'm not that well informed) but where the hell does Obama stand on impeachment? Is he pushing it or is he too busy courting Hispanic voters by pushing driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants (not illegals, illegals are the American troops in Iraq) a few days before Super Tuesday?

This country is in a constitutional crisis where the president says he will not obey the law with his unprecedented use of signing statements and all the erstwhile "opposition party" the Ben-over-crats" can say and do is nothing. bush does whatever he wants to do. Where are the Bend-over-crats?

And please don't blame 2000 on Nader and his supporters, blame the cowardice of Al Gore, his handlers and the totally debased, sold-out, unprincipled Bend-over-crats now lead by that extreme sell-out Pelosi who insists "impeachment is off the table." Gore WON the election then stood down because the powers that be preferred it that way. Put the blame where it belongs.

We need to dump the Dims and go Green or 3rd party because after all there's not a huge difference between corrupt repugs and corrupt repug-lites. To hell with the hope-dealers and the hope-smokers!

Run Ralph, RUN!

What's up with all these pro-Obama/Democratic party articles on Common Dreams?

No articles supporting Nader's potential run. Why? I just read one over on Counterpunch.

Paul,

I certainly understand and share your frustration. I simply can't understand how someone who considers themselves liberal or progressive can fail to recognize the monsters that now control the Republican party. Or, if they recognize that, how they can fail to stop them when the have the opportunity. I find your logic fallatious because it relies on so many irrelevant "facts."

1. Tautological.

2. Agreed, but with rights come responsibilities.

3. Agreed. Irrelevant. Most of those people are too ignorant to understand what's going on. Does it frustrate me that there are so many ignorant - often willingly ignorant - people in this country? Yes, but what's the point in getting upset with people who basically are incapable of understanding?

4. Agreed. If anything, that supports my position. His campaign was Quixotic. There was no chance of winning. I understand and support the goal of a viable third party but he could have achieved practically the same result AND kept Bush out of the WH. Besides, for a third party to be successful, it has to be built between elections from the ground up. What third party has ever been built from the top down? Most votes for third party candidates - with any candidate, in fact, but it is not as relevant to established parties - are votes for a personality. Fledgling parties can't sustain themselves when the star leaves the stage. Its been eight years, how much have the Greens grown since?

5. Agreed. Also irrelevant. It sucks but those are the rules of the game. Everyone knew the electoral college would decide on election day 2000. They also knew it would be close and that Florida, in particular, would be very tightly contested.

6. On the (bogus) certified count, Gore lost Florida by somewhere around 500 votes.

7. Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida.

So here are my assumptions:

1. People that voted for Nader were aware, involved and generally care about the state of our constitutional system of government, the just, transparent rule of law and the well being of their fellow citizens - especially those least able to support themselves. In fact, my assumption is that most Nader voters feel a civic responsiblility to improve this country and our government. (Is that the flaw in my logic? I don't think so and I hope not.) In other words, what I would consider progressives/liberals.

2. George W Bush was a clear and present danger to the values and ideals progressives/liberals hold dear.

3. The Democrats, while not quite the embodiment of those values, at the absolute very least presented a demonstrably significantly lower threat to those values.

Basically, if I see someone stepping in front of a bus - even out of his own ignorance and inattention - and I have an opportunity to save him, I have a responsibility to try even at the risk of harm to myself. In 2000, the country stepped in front of a bus and the Nader voters could have stopped it, but Nader was more concerned with his agenda. Now my country is in ICU on life support. (Granted, I never could have dreamed of the magnitude of the danger but, it was clear to anyone paying attention the danger was very real.) Saying "someone else could have saved him" may be true but it doesn't absolve me. The Democrats - sad and disgusting as they often are - were the ONLY viable alternative to Bush. (Back to the Greens; I think it is plausible that they would have advanced their cause - i.e., attracted more interest and attention, possibly members - by making the "grand gesture." Arguable, but plausible.)

That's why I get so distressed with this group. Mybe my "ire" is out of proportion but I thought they were better than that. If that's an agenda, so be it.

I don't really expect this to sway you but I'll let you have the last word, if you wish. (I won't respond to you again unless you specifically ask.)

brissot:

You are so hopelessly offbase in your thinking, I don't really know how to respond, and doubt there is much of a point in it. You have some other ulterior motive for not following basic reason. Let's start with some FACTS we might both agree on:

1. Politicians, universally, are elected by their supporters, not by their detractors.

2. We have the democratic RIGHT not to vote for people we cannot agree with, or to not to vote at all.

3. The voter turnout in 2000 of eligibles was only 51%: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

4. Nader got barely over 5% of the vote (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/popular_...).

5. Gore and his neocon running mate WON the popular vote, but lost the Electoral. The Republicrats have had 200 years to get rid if the Electoral College. If they're crying foul, eliminate the goddamned thing.

So I must revise my earlier claim that non-voters outnumbered Nader supporters 3-5:1. Try almost a magnitude of 10:1.

That's your problem, buddy. The Democrats aren't believable as a real alternative, and your missing "entitlement votes" were denied by non-voters by a factor of almost 10:1 over Nader supporters.

So your ire directed to Nader, it seems, is mathematically 10 times greater than the numbers would warrant. Why's that?

Paul,

Hundreds of thousands have died and millions more have suffered because a few thousand could not bring themselves to vote for someone who was not sufficiently ideologically pure. And yet, so many on this site are determined to do it again.

Forgive me if I am not awed by their virtue. Its one thing to give up all that you have to honor your principles but so many others are paying the price of your conceit. Principles that are so rigid they demand everyone else suffer for their integrity sound more like ego to me.

brissot:

Democracy is lost when people don't vote their convictions. If the system does not allow them to do so, it is a misnomer to call it a democracy.

The only win that matters is if each person stays true to his principles.

If I were 30 years younger I would be tempted to put this opinion piece in a bong and smoke it. Oh what the f*$# anybody got a light?

Paul,

OK, the Democrats have always had warts - some of the them huge. But, the fact of the matter is that any of the more progressive policies - civil rights, glass-steagall, tva, etc. - enacted in the last hundred years were enacted primarily thanks to Democrats. Still, I'll rephrase that, to say a Democratic Party that actual embraces liberal ideas.

(BTW, I don't know if you caught it but I renounced my ad hominem cheap shot from a previous exchange.)

I'm not bashing the democratic process, at all. Simply pointing out that we need to focus on outcomes as well as process. People with a genuine concern for progressive principles had to recognize in 2000 that, while Gore was far, far ... far from ideal, Bush was anathema to their core beliefs. They had four choices: vote for Gore, vote for Bush, vote for someone else, not vote. Three of these choices improved Bush's chances of winning relative to the other. (Sorry, but I have to assume that both Gore and Bush were probably to the right of these people. If so, it is indisputable that Bush's principles were further from these voters' notions of ideal.) At the time, I believed the imperative in 2000 - and I humbly suggest History has borne me out in this - was keeping Bush out of office.

Under no scenario was Bush ever ahead in the final Florida count by more than 2,500 votes. (And the vote consortium shows that, had all the votes been recounted, he would not have won under any scenario.) Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida. If even half of those votes would have gone to Gore, Bush would never have been able to contest Florida. Gore would have won in spite of the shortcomings of our process. Similarly, Bush won New Hampshire by only 7,211 votes. Had naderites there voted for Gore instead, Florida would have been moot.

Hey, I'm not happy about my choices but that doesn't change reality. It would be great if there were a truly progressive, truly viable alternative. But there isn't.

It would be one thing if we had IRV so everyone could still feel good about voting their conscience without courting disaster. Such a system would also help to demonstrate the true level of support each candidate has and tend to empower third (or fourth or fifth) parties and help to break the stranglehold of the two party system. But we don't.

As trite as it may sound we are faced - as we were in 2000 - with choosing the lesser of two evils. Any choice we make will lead to one of two outcomes: either a Democrat will be in the WH or a Republican will. While neither of the two viable Democratic candidates represents a cure in my opinion, the Republicans represent the most virulent strain of the disease.

The problems with the process represent a chronic disease that will, over time, kill the patient. Bush, and his Republican would be successors represent a gunshot wound to the chest. You're the doctor. Are you going to treat the chronic disease before the gunshot wound? That's what naderites did in 2000. Hopefully, enough of them will learn from that mistake.

Brissot,

Your bashing of a genuine democracy isn't convincing. Bush supporters put Bush into office. People who didn't vote in '00 outnumbered Nader supporters by like 3-5:1. Gore perhaps shouldn't have run with a neocon as a running mate, and perhaps shown just a teensy-weensy more fight in him to challenge the results in Florida and elsewhere.

In any case, Bush lost the popular election in '00, chads or no chads. He was nonethless elected because our system stifles democracy (lack of Range/IRV, Electoral College, yadda yadda yadda).

I'm curious about your "return to liberal ideals" vision of the Democratic party.

What time-frame are you thinking about here? When the racist Dixiecrats were among their ranks? When Ronald Reagan was a Democrat? When LBJ stifled a genuine investigation of the JFK assassination? Tonkin? 1968 convention in Chicago? Carter? Clinton?

When was this Golden Age for liberalism among the Democrats?

RSJ,

Nader might have been emailing a relatively small distribution advising them to vote for Gore in tight states - if so, I'll take that as an endorsement by Nader of my position that it is better to have a crappy Democrat than virtually any of the Republican options. 97,000 voted for Nader in Florida so, apparently, his email didn't convince enough people. (And we always seem to forget about New Hampshire.) No matter what his email said, in public, he was spewing the "not a dime's worth of difference" crap.

Well, it may not have been a dimes worth, more like: a trillion in Iraq, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and 4,000 US lives; 630 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy contributing to 650 billion dollar swing in the budget from a 250 billion surplus to 400 billion deficit; the National Debt increasing from 5.8 to 9.2 Trillion. That's just for starters. In non-monetary terms, there's Cheney, Libby and Addington, Rove, Alito and Roberts, Ashcroft and Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Rice, Chao ... this list could truly go on forever. How about Bush's Executive Order regarding Presidential Records (his first EO, I think), evisceration of FOIA, the unitary executive, eavesdropping on US citizens and possibly even 9/11 - not that Bush had anything to do with the execution of 9/11 but it might have been prevented had the level of attention the Clinton administration gave terrorism continued - Kyoto, 400 mountaintops in the Appalachians ...

I can understand why it is so important for you naderites to rationalize your 2000 votes. I'd have a hard time owning up to my part in all of the above if I had put Bush in office, too.

Again, this in no way justifies the cowardly sheepishness of the Democrats in Congress who have enabled Bush. The point is, very little, if any, of this would have even been "on the table" in a Gore Administration.

Good is a relative term. Would Gore have made a fantastic - or even a good - President. His 2000 campaign and record up until then suggests the answer is probably no. However, relative to the disaster known as the Bush Presidency, it would have to be viewed as the preferable (good) alternative.

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

I'm all for having better alternatives - be it a Democratic Party that has grown a spine and returned to its Liberal ideals or a third party that can present a viable alternative. But, as in 2000, there are only 2 possible outcomes: a Democrat in the White House or a Republican. Anything other than a vote for a Democrat, advances the possibility of another Republican administration. I don't see how any thinking progressive can countenance that.

As someone who has given money to both Kucinich and Gravel I am disappointed that neither one of their candadacies took hold.
Gravel never got any MSM notice, Kucinich was made a laughingstock with the UFO question and tying him to Shirley McClaine I had just decided to vote for Edwards on 2/5, when he dropped out.

I'll probably vote for Obama next week, only because I think the best way to unite the repubs is to nominate Billary. She's a smart capable person (I got to witness some of her health care hearings) but the right-wing has been hitting the Clinotns so hard for the last 16 years she has huge negatives.

Another year that CA doesn't have an early enough voice in the nominating process.

We need another way. Give people the candidate positions no name attached, let them choose without the ads, fund raising horse race....

And, as other threads have pointed out, The Bush I/II interactions with Iraq appear to be one of the modern-day genocides. It is totally unconscionable, indeed -- unbelievable -- that personal loyalty would cause ANYONE to support a supporter of this crime.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 -> ???.

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.

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?

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

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.

Frosty bunny (7:51) - You are truly a half-wit. I'll be thinking of types like you in November too, when McCain wins. // I know it's hopeless to try explaining this to you, but blaming me for Republican victories represents a fundamental confusion on your part. I would be happy to vote for a Democrat if (by some magic) he or she wasn't a quasi-neocon Republican-appeasing corporatist/militarist. The problem is not that I stubbornly refuse to vote for your warmonger. The problem is that your disgusting corrupt party refuses to nominate anyone but warmongers.

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.

"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.

RSJ,

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

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.

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.

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_...

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

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

>> 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.

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?

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.

leftk,

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.