Xtina, go to his website or listen to his speeches -- Obama has talked about international affairs extensively and if you're seriously comparing a brilliant man who worked his way into Harvard on his merits to lazy Yale-legacy rich kid Bush, then you wouldn't know an empty suit from a bag of gold bars.

I'm soooooo sick and tired of the media-driven frenzy over this emperor without clothes, Obama.

Someone a few dozen posts up said it all - he's an empty shirt.
Empty - and like George W. Bush that fateful year the Supreme Court handed him the presidency - UNPREPARED for leadership. (When was the last time the O man said anything about international affairs?)

Bob K, you apparently have a reading comprehension problem; perhaps ALL CAPS will improve your understanding: Obama, as did many Dems, CAMPAIGNED IN THE SPRING OF 2006 BECAUSE LIEBERMAN WAS THE SITTING DEM SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT. HE LATER SUPPORTED NED LAMONT, WHEN HE BECAME THE DEM NOMINEE. How hard is that to understand?

Most of the 'facts' and 'evidence' you've presented are nothing more than conjecture, wild distortions or plain wrong.

As far as the rest of your tripe, you can kiss my big black ass.

RSJ said,

"Mentors are assigned to freshman senators and, yes, it is the luck of the draw. I already explained why he went to CT to campaign for Lieberman."

No, you have not explained why Obama campaigned for Lieberman. You haven't explained anything. In fact, there is no explanation except that Obama wanted super-hawk Lieberman to defeat anti-war Lamont.

You offer mostly adjectives and lame excuses for Obama's duplicitous agenda.

The few specifics you offer are misleading half-truths or falsehoods.

Ralph Nader very clearly said on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Mathews," a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses, that Obama's "agenda is not progressive" -- those were his exact words -- and that is why he would not rule out running on a third-party ticket if Obama wins the Democratic nomination.

The facts and evidence support my conclusions, while you are reduced to name-calling.

RSJ said "Are you a mind-reader, do you know that Obama's email was a matter of political expedience, that he really wanted to defeat Lamont?"

Bob K wrote: "I don't have to be a mind-reader to know that Obama really wanted to defeat Lamont; OBAMA WENT TO CONNECTICUT AND CAMPAIGNED FOR JOE LIEBERMAN! What could be more clear? If you don't know that his last-minute email was political cover you must really have your head in the sand."

Bob K, read my earlier posts and the newspaper articles on the subject: He "went to Connecticut and campaigned for" Lieberman when he was the sitting Dem senator in March 2006; he supported Ned Lamont after Lamont became the Dem nominee, as did many other Dems who initially supported Lieberman. You have your head somewhere else if you believe otherwise.

Bob K wrote: "Likewise, you say Lieberman is lying about Obama choosing him as his Senate mentor. Do you seriously believe Obama that it was just his bad luck to draw Lieberman? Then WHY DID OBAMA GO TO CONNECTICUT AND CAMPAIGN FOR LIEBERMAN? It's obvious that Obama is the one who is now lying about choosing Lieberman."

Mentors are assigned to freshman senators and, yes, it is the luck of the draw. I already explained why he went to CT to campaign for Lieberman.

Bob K wrote: "Shutting out uncomfortable facts about Obama's duplicity and his affinity for Lieberman is classic psychological denial, like the alcoholic who can't admit he's addicted. Obamaholics acted similarly after Obama praised Ronald Reagan in his videotaped meeting with the Reno Gazette-Journal board. They fell all over themselves claiming Obama didn't mean what he said, and even invented things he supposedly said (but did not) to try to soften Obama's admiration of Reagan (who was also an accomplished liar, by the way)."

You're wrong again. Bob. I originally supported Kucinich and then Edwards; I am supporting Obama now because he's the only game in town, next to Billary.

Bob K wrote: "(Anyone who doubts Obama's praise for Reagan — which included some of Reagan's toxic agenda — can go to the newspaper's website and watch the entire 49-minute video, like I did.)"

You're problem is that you're an 'anti-Obama maniac,' which causes you to misinterpret the things he's said. You are blinded by your hatred of the man. I heard what he had to say about Reagan, and it didn't sound like an endorsement of any of his policies to me, merely an analysis of his political methods.

Bob K wrote: "You claim that "[Obama] did not threaten to 'invade Pakistan'; he said he might send in Special Forces to arrest Osama bin Laden and other terrorists if the Pakistan government refused to do so . . ."
"But, the New York Times reported on August 2, 2007, "Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday that the United States should . . . dispatch American forces to eradicate terrorist camps in Pakistan if that nation failed to take such action. [He] said he would order strikes on Al Qaeda targets and withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid if the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, did not blunt a resurging Taliban presence in the country's tribal areas. This, he said, is the "right battlefield" to make the United States safer."

This is patently ridiculous: I have heard him explain this fully and, as I said earlier, he was going to target Al-Qaeda, not 'invade' Pakistan and occupy the country. Withholding millions of dollars in foreign aid to a despot who rules with an iron fist seems to me a sane policy.

Bob K wrote: "Strikes" means air strikes (bombs and missiles), and "dispatch American forces" means a ground invasion. Obama has clearly threatened to bomb and invade Pakistan. You may like his warmongering. I do not."

'Strikes' mean very limited strikes on Al-Qaeda camps; 'dispatch American forces' means to send in Special Forces to arrest Al-Qaeda members and then leave the country. He has never called for an invasion and occupation of Pakistan. Your argument here is ludicrous.

Bob K wrote: "You say the articles I cited are "opinion pieces." But, they contain many facts upon which those opinions are based. Here are a few facts from "The Obama Illusion."

• Obama opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent

He voted against the Bankruptcy Act.

• Obama voted for an anti-consumer "tort reform" bill

He also ultimately voted against that bill, as well.

• Obama says he opposes single-payer, universal healthcare because it would cost jobs in the private insurance industry

No he hasn't said this, you are making it up. He opposes a single-payer system for now, but his plan, as he has explained several times in detail, will cover everyone. Cite the source for this claim that he said he was constructing his plan to save jobs in the health insurance industry.

• Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive Patriot Act

He did, with codicils on the worst parts of the Act. I didn't agree with this vote either, but I did say he has his flaws, just not as many as those opposing him.

• Obama opposed Senator Russ Feingold's move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens

Yes, he did, but he has repeatedly said that the president must obey the FISA court law. Until I have an explanation for why he didn't support Feingold's censure -- these things are not always as simple as naive people like Bob think -- I'll withhold judgment.

• Obama says use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran is "on the table"

I explained that in my previous post in this thread. He's not planning on going to war with Iran, and has said so several times -- in fact, he'll meet and negotiate with Ahmadenijad, something none of the other top candidates have pledged to do.

• Obama joins victim-blaming Republicans in saying that poor blacks' "cultural" issues are the cause of concentrated black poverty

That's a massive distortion worthy of a Swift Boat Vet, which you may very well be, Bob. He merely said that is a part of the problem, as has Henry Louis Gates, Cornel West and others.

• Obama claims that blacks have joined the American "socioeconomic mainstream" (even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar)

Another distortion. He merely pointed out that more blacks are in the middle class these days in wages, which is demonstrably true.

• Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) call for a rapid redeployment and a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, he emphasizes a need to "defeat" the "insurgency" — a goal that means continuation of the war.

Another absurd claim. He said in the Dem debate Thursday that he would have all US troops out of Iraq within 16 months of becoming president and would close down all permanent bases. He said not one word about defeating the insurgency.

You may call Obama's record "progressive." I do not. Ralph Nader has also said Obama's agenda is not progressive.

I have said he is more progressive than Hillary, and definitely more progressive than any of the Republicans.

Ralph Nader has not said that all of Obama's 'agenda' is not progressive -- he said there are parts of it he questions, and he has not ruled out supporting Obama at this date, although he is exploring the possibility of running for president again.

Bob, I still think you're likely a right-wing plant trolling here to try and defame the most progressive Dem in the race with a chance of winning. It's very Rovian.

RSJ said "Are you a mind-reader, do you know that Obama's email was a matter of political expedience, that he really wanted to defeat Lamont?"

I don't have to be a mind-reader to know that Obama really wanted to defeat Lamont; OBAMA WENT TO CONNECTICUT AND CAMPAIGNED FOR JOE LIEBERMAN! What could be more clear? If you don't know that his last-minute email was political cover you must really have your head in the sand.

Likewise, you say Lieberman is lying about Obama choosing him as his Senate mentor. Do you seriously believe Obama that it was just his bad luck to draw Lieberman? Then WHY DID OBAMA GO TO CONNECTICUT AND CAMPAIGN FOR LIEBERMAN? It's obvious that Obama is the one who is now lying about choosing Lieberman.

Shutting out uncomfortable facts about Obama's duplicity and his affinity for Lieberman is classic psychological denial, like the alcoholic who can't admit he's addicted. Obamaholics acted similarly after Obama praised Ronald Reagan in his videotaped meeting with the Reno Gazette-Journal board. They fell all over themselves claiming Obama didn't mean what he said, and even invented things he supposedly said (but did not) to try to soften Obama's admiration of Reagan (who was also an accomplished liar, by the way).

(Anyone who doubts Obama's praise for Reagan -- which included some of Reagan's toxic agenda -- can go to the newspaper's website and watch the entire 49-minute video, like I did.)

You claim that "[Obama] did not threaten to 'invade Pakistan'; he said he might send in Special Forces to arrest Osama bin Laden and other terrorists if the Pakistan government refused to do so . . ."

But, the New York Times reported on August 2, 2007, "Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday that the United States should . . . dispatch American forces to eradicate terrorist camps in Pakistan if that nation failed to take such action. [He] said he would order strikes on Al Qaeda targets and withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid if the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, did not blunt a resurging Taliban presence in the country's tribal areas. This, he said, is the "right battlefield" to make the United States safer."

"Strikes" means air strikes (bombs and missiles), and "dispatch American forces" means a ground invasion. Obama has clearly threatened to bomb and invade Pakistan. You may like his warmongering. I do not.

You say the articles I cited are "opinion pieces." But, they contain many facts upon which those opinions are based. Here are a few facts from "The Obama Illusion."

• Obama opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent

• Obama voted for an anti-consumer "tort reform" bill

• Obama says he opposes single-payer, universal healthcare because it would cost jobs in the private insurance industry

• Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive Patriot Act

• Obama opposed Senator Russ Feingold's move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens

• Obama says use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran is "on the table"

• Obama joins victim-blaming Republicans in saying that poor blacks' "cultural" issues are the cause of concentrated black poverty

• Obama claims that blacks have joined the American "socioeconomic mainstream" (even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar)

• Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) call for a rapid redeployment and a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, he emphasizes a need to "defeat" the "insurgency" — a goal that means continuation of the war.

You may call Obama's record "progressive." I do not. Ralph Nader has also said Obama's agenda is not progressive.

grumpyoldlady --

To learn more about Obama's Republican agenda, please see the three articles I cited in my earlier post. They are enlightening. There are more articles by Paul Street here:

http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/paulstreet

walt February 1st, 2008 8:42 am
Jesus Christ! Is this discussion about Obama or Jesus Christ?

Welcome to the corporate media controlled US public! Let us pander once again to the crazy christians who think Bush the war monger is the new second coming!!
The posters here on CD are more intelligent than other blogsites but when you read the broad based venom and stupidity you understand why we have endured a mail room frat boy for seven years. Americans are the most apathetic, bigoted and stupid people on the face of the earth. They don't think and the sad part is they don't care to. They will cause all of us to drown in the stupidity they have caused.
As much as stupid americans like to dog France - you are required to vote in France and other European countries. And Europeans are in much better shape than most Americans because they walk instead of driving the gas guzzling (make Cheney richer) Hummer types of cars.
I love America but I am sick of the bloated, pasty white male assholes and greedy corporations that have drained this country of its jobs and resources leaving the military as the only viable option for getting ahead for the poor.
Let's hope the people wake up in time to prevent another corporate whore from power (Clinton & McCain).
Go, Obama - the only candidate with a working brain!!

Bob,

Thanks for the tip. I went to the Nader website and joined the e-mail list. I'm listening to his interview with Amy right now. If he runs I will vote for him.

Bob,

"If you are tired of non-Republicans being marginalized, why would you support a candidate who pledges to continue many of the Republicans' foreign and domestic policies?"

Um, I haven't decided who I support yet, and the Cabinet consists of presidential advisors. They don't set policy. Please give me some examples of Republican foreign and domestic policies that Obama has "pledged" to support.

Bob K wrote: "When Obama came to the Senate he chose super-hawk Joe Lieberman as his assigned mentor. That's not "flawed analysis," it's a fact."

Actually, Bob, according to your own sources, it is a he-said-he-said -- the Obama camp claims he was assigned Lieberman as a mentor; only Lieberman -- check the first three letters of his surname -- says Obama asked for Lieberman as his mentor. That is not a 'fact.'

Bob K wrote: "In other words, Obama's email was only political expedience, helping to cover the fact that (as I said) he had 'campaigned FOR Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race, and helped him DEFEAT the anti-war Democrat candidate Ned Lamont.'"

That is also not a 'fact' but your opinion. Are you a mind-reader, do you know that Obama's email was a matter of political expedience, that he really wanted to defeat Lamont?

Bob K wrote: "Obama is NOT progressive. He is explicitly running to the Right of Hillary Clinton, as a "centrist" who will work "across the isle" with Republicans and may appoint Republicans to his Cabinet. He is a war hawk who threatens to invade Pakistan and use first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran (both war crimes)."

Oh, brother, what a load of malarkey. Read his past history; he has consistently supported progressive ideas and sponsored progressive legislation and, in order to pass that legislation, he sometimes had to 'reach across the aisle' to get things done. FDR and LBJ did the same to get their liberal programs enacted. Currently, he is rated as the most liberal US Senator, based on his voting record. He did not threaten to 'invade Pakistan'; he said he might send in Special Forces to arrest Osama bin Laden and other terrorists if the Pakistan government refused to do so, just what Bush should have done in Afghanistan. He also did not 'threaten' a nuclear strike against Iran; he said if Iran ever posed an actual danger, he would not take that option off the table, but he has been consistently against attacking Iran, preferring diplomacy to defuse the situation, as the UN and Mohammed ElBaredei of the IAEA have suggested.

As far as the three articles you cited, they all are opinion pieces written by people who have a poltical axe to grind with Obama; some because they are in a different party, such as the guy from the Socialist Workers' Party, others because they are leaning to another candidate. None of this constitutes 'fact,' but someone's opinion.

It may come as a surprise to you, but Obama is a human being and therefore has his flaws; he is also a politician, and sometimes will do things for political reasons, that's the nature of the game. If you can find any liberal candidate who has no flaws and has a chance of beating the GOP in November, I'll vote for him or her; absent that, I'd rather take a chance with Obama than McCain or Romney.

Dear grumpyoldlady,

I thought your recent post was filled with wisdom.

Thanks.

>>> hybridoma2001, "It has turned into a discussion about Jesus. And once again, as I posted earlier, this proves that we need a clear and strong seperation of Churh and State."

This is a grand illustration of fuzzy thinking. Do you realize the inherent attack on free speech in this kind of statement? I am not writing a court decision. I am not making law or public policy. I am simply engaging in discussion about politics and morality and for whom I wish to vote. How can one's religion or moral system NOT be a part of such a discussion?

>>> hybridoma2001, "Why is it that it's only the unborn that so many people seem to care about so much? What about those already living?"

You have taken to setting up a straw man and beating it to death. I have only said that the unborm are the MOST helpless... and as such, I see it as my responsibility to come to their defense. I think that there are many others in our society who need champions as well. I have not said otherwise. At times I am dissapionted that the Republican party appears to be the party of selfishness... however, I can't say that I've seen the Democrats really helping people in need more than the Republicans.

>>> hybridoma2001, "Also, to be frank about it, what the world needs are LESS children, not more."

Wow. I don't know what to say to that. If that is how you really think, I feel sorry for you. Can that actually be a reason to be for abortion??? Why post that? I like children... and puppies. I do like puppies.

>>> dumbo, "So, the government hasnt done these things to you? Lucky you. It looks like .. when I take into account what your talking about, you only care about yourself."

Not at all. I don't think government has done these things to you either. The government is not out to get you. The government has no motive. It is not a thinking entity. The government does not even have much control over our society. That is all to the good. Furthermore, the "people in Washington" will always be selfish... with rare exceptions. That is just how it is. So, when I vote, I am not looking for the perfect candidate, just the one who is the most trustworthy and whom I prefer idiologically over the others.

>>> Daniel David, "Some of the mission of the left is about countering the effects of corporations in our society by controlling them somewhat through government."

Agreed. Corporate enterprise can be both good and bad. The bad stuff needs to be "countered" or "controlled."

grumpyoldlady,

Your thoughts are contradictory. If you are tired of non-Republicans being marginalized, why would you support a candidate who pledges to continue many of the Republicans' foreign and domestic policies?

Here's what Obama said about whom he would appoint to his cabinet: "I will not shy away from appointing Republicans to my cabinet," and I will look for people with military experience and "business-side" economic experience. (Reno Gazette-Journal video)

Johnny Mo

I don't agree with those who extrapolate from your position on abortion that you don't care for children or for those who suffer from war, disease or poverty. Nothing you said would lead me to that conclusion. While we may not agree in our conclusions on some issues, all of us struggle with difficult questions of life and death, right and wrong. When, if ever, is war justified? Where do we draw the line between personal freedom and social responsibility? When does government involvement in the lives of citizens become intrusion on civil liberties? How do we balance our desire to protect civil liberties with the demands of the common good? When does reliance on government become a harmful dependency?

All of us look to answer these complicated questions within the privacy of our hearts and minds, seeking guidance from sources we trust. For some, it is our religious beliefs, whatever they may be, or the leaders of our faith we look to. For others, it is the guidance of philosophers or social leaders whose views we respect. Whether we agree or not, we are all on the same journey. Your honest expression of your views should not result in a disparagement of your faith, leaps of logic that distort the views you expressed, or the name-calling and harsh accusations that only serve to shut down civil discourse.

Bob K

You said, "Obama is NOT progressive. He is explicitly running to the Right of Hillary Clinton, as a "centrist" who will work "across the isle" with Republicans and may appoint Republicans to his Cabinet."

Since at least half, more or less, of the American voters are Republicans, does it not make sense that any candidate running for office seek to find some common ground upon which to work with them? For the last eight years, the Bush administration has marginalized, side-stepped and ignored the non-Republican electorate, and as a result our country has become incredibly polarized. Distastefully so, in my opinion. I haven't enjoyed being marginalized, and I suspect that the Republican-leaning citizens would feel the same way. They're not going to go away, so, sooner or later, we have to find ways to work together if we're going to get anything accomplished.

Just a thought.

The problem is that we are still talking about voting when we should be talking about revolting.

Johnny Mo,

Some of the mission of the left is about countering the effects of corporations in our society by controlling them somewhat through government. Examples of artificial entities that need controlling are those that bring us gambling, violent entertainment, sexed-up media, too much advertising, hype to buy bad investments (like Enron), insurance scams, bank "fees" to the moon, payday loans, credit card enslavement,
gas-guzzlers for our macho-man egos, etc. There are more.

As for you, glad you came to CD. Hope you come back.
Diversity of opinion is needed here. Gospel discussion is good here too. Best wishes.

A summary of Obama's views on the issues at CNN (I hope I can trust these summaries) http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/

I don't see much by any of them that's going to make a bit of difference. Obama or any of the others ideas will take us anywhere near where we need to be. Anybody will to point one out I'd be willing to listen.

colleen January 31st, 2008 11:37 pm "I think it would have been possible to have stopped Hitler earlier and there would never have been a Holocaust. "

Yea and if people would have known about the bush crime family history none of the bush family would ever been elected to government.

The following should be required reading in the public schools. College history teaches it.

Summary Of The Bush Crime Family History
http://www.sonic.net/~taryfast/destruction.html

Johnny Mo January 31st, 2008 10:28 pm
***rickster469 January 31st, 2008 4:48 pm, "What I don't understand is why any Christian would ever vote for a Republican."

Why would I vote Republican? Consider this:
I think God wants me to champion the weakest and most helpless among us. Right now those who need championing are unborn human beings. I'll vote for anyone who will do this.

I agree with rickster469. Voting against your own economic self interest is pretty dumb but God forbid a woman make a medical choice over her own body or the gay couple down the street marry or adopt those children you don't want.
Why is it you pro life republicans only care about children until they enter this world?
ReTHUGlicans cut poverty, Headstart and children's health service programs to the bone and I don't see any rich white folks using their undeserved tax cuts to help or adopt underpriveledged children from the inner cities.
And I guess it's ok to slaughter and maim American kids (and over a million Iraqis) in an unjust war for unbrideled corporate greed: oil for your Hummer, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, GE and Halliburton profits? And it's ok that reTHUGs have hijacked the Christian religion through propaganda?
America is in debt and all our good jobs have been drained from us by the greedy corporate vampires but the Rethugs still con people into voting for them based on social issues.
The GOP has always been the party of the rich and big business and Georgie is a corporation's wet dream. And the Clintons are Democrat corporate whores and if she gets the nod nothing will change.

That's why I love Barack, he's inspiring and different and he has revived a hope and a spirit not felt since the '60's. Hey, I was there.

stephen b February 1st, 2008 3:07 am I truly don't understand how so many of you refuse to support Obama. We finally have a candidate with a truly progressive agenda.

Obama progressive you make me laugh.

Johnny Mo January 31st, 2008 10:28 pm

1. I think God wants me to champion the weakest and most helpless among us. Right now those who need championing are unborn human beings. I'll vote for anyone who will do this.

Do you really think outlawing abortion is going to put an end to it? Have you read and understood the histories. When abortion was illegal there were more abortions taking place then after it was legalized. How do we know this because more time than not the mother would have to seek help from a medical doctor afterward, many times the mother died. By making abortions legal women went to people who were professionals and many of them actually cared. Thanks to the democrats today abortions are fewer than they ever were. Besides the republicans aren't actually going to do anything to outlaw abortions because republicans are generally wealthier and are more apt to get abortions. The abortion issue is nothing but a head game for the republicans.

2. I think it is my responsibility to care for my fellow man (and woman). I think it is a disaster that people would think that this is the government's responsibility.

How come it's not happening? I'll tell you why. Republican do donate more money than democrats, there's no question about that but they donate to things that's going to benefit them in some way such as museums, and the arts. These kinds of donations don't go along way toward feeding the poor.

3. I don't think we should be spending our children's money. In this respect Bush has been a disaster.

I don't think we should be spending our children's money either but every republican we've ever had has not only done it but they have increased the number of people in poverty also. That dam sure doesn't help the children of these people.

4. I do think that it is right to take a stand against evil and tyranny.

Yea and there are many ways to do this without going to war.

This is not to say that every war is a just war, but some are. WWII was just such a war. That's the last one I know of.

I think Bush has done his best when it comes to foreign policy.

I sure would hate to see his worst.

I realize that in this forum such words are anathema… but I think, in broad strokes, his decisions after 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been right

I agree with his going into Afghanistan but he didn't hang around to finish it. We should have never have gone into Iraq which is what he wanted to do all along. He flat out lied to start the war in Iraq and there is a mountain of evidence to support it. Bush and Chenney needs to be impeached and tried for war crimes. I do not feel safer today; Bush has made the world far more dangerous than it has been in any time in history with the exception of WWII.

And, how would you define "common good?" Is it socialism?

Why are you afraid of socialism? It is a democratic form of government. Do you actually prefer fascism? That's the kind of government the republicans are giving us. I will admit the democrats are following right along.

I do believe in socialist principles and countries that are following them have more freedom of choice than America does. They have less poverty, better health care, and the environment they live in is getting better not worst like we are. Give me one good reason why socialism isn't a better form of government than what we have now.

All this talk about Jesus and Christian values is simply more of the same debate that has been going on for centuries. The truth is, Jesus never wrote a single word. There are no records of books or a system of beliefs written and explained by Jesus. All that we read about Jesus is second, third, fourth – take it as far as you want – handwritings about Jesus. I believe that some of the first writings about Jesus occurred some 60 years after his death.

I am a great believer in the wisdom and thinking of the greatest minds throughout history. Jefferson refused to think of the bible as anything more than ravings from shallow minds. Thomas Paine actually went head on against the Catholic Church in his day, debunking many of that which is written in the bible. I could go on and on. William James' book, "The Will to Believe" is one of my favorites because it leaves the question of what or whom we believe in up to the individual. If it works for you, then fine. But leave those who believe otherwise alone. Immanuel Kant in "A Critique of Pure Reason" also finds a place for religion in our lives – it's just something we can never prove because it transcends our everyday experience and the limits of our ability to demonstrate the truth of any system of beliefs. But we can still Believe and have Faith.

This long string of posts demonstrates exactly why religion needs to be completely separated from politics. And anyone who thinks that a government doesn't have the moral imperative to help those who have the least, and stamp the "Evil" word socialism on it, I can't understand. All the great leaders throughout the history of the world know that this is a part of a government's duty: to serve and protect all regardless of financial status.

In fact we do have many "socialist" programs in our nation. Fireman, the police force, highways and infrastructure, the military are a few that come to mind. I know there are those who believe in privatizing everything, but there are some things that simply can't be privatized, nor should they. What is it with the word "socialism" that scares so many people?

As to the article, I don't give a damn about any candidate's religious views. In fact, they shouldn't even be a factor in choosing a leader. I prefer Obama to Clinton because I feel he is the better person to begin to turn this huge ship called the USA around. And I personally feel that he's just doing what he has to in order to get the cash needed to get elected these days. I truly feel that once in office, he's going to piss off a lot of his corporate donors once he's in a position of power. Just look at how the Bush administration got the more radical religious folks to vote for him and then turn around and screwed them. He's screwed every single person in the USA and he has no regard for what the world needs. The only people who have benefited from the Bush era are the wealthy. Any honest person who is willing to take an objective look at what has become of the USA in the last eight years would give Mr. Bush a failing grade, to say the least.

I think you're right, Colleen. As a general rule of thumb, anyone who spells Obama's first name 'Barak' or uses his middle name of Hussein is most likely a right-winger doing a little skunky mischief while pretending to be a liberal. They would like nothing better this year than to have a disunited Dem Party -- it's the only way they can win in November.

Johnny Mo wrote: "Well, rickster, I suppose that I can understand why, from a liberal perspective, you would say this. Most liberals that I know think that they care about people more. I don't know that that is true. Why would I vote Republican? Consider this:

1. I think God wants me to champion the weakest and most helpless among us. Right now those who need championing are unborn human beings. I'll vote for anyone who will do this.

What about the born who happen to be in the military or New Orleans; what about the innocent people we are killing and maiming in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you recall what Jesus said regarding those who made children suffer?

2. I think it is my responsibility to care for my fellow man (and woman). I think it is a disaster that people would think that this is the government's responsibility.

Our government is of, by, and for the people. Using our government to care for people is, therefore, inseparable from you caring for other people individually.

3. I don't think we should be spending our children's money. In this respect Bush has been a disaster.

So was Reagan and the Republican Congress. So why did you vote for any of them?

4. I do think that it is right to take a stand against evil and tyranny. This is not to say that every war is a just war, but some are. I think Bush has done his best when it comes to foreign policy. I realize that in this forum such words are anathema… but I think, in broad strokes, his decisions after 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been right.

In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, which Colleen quoted from in an earlier comment, Jesus tells his followers clearly not to resist evil but to go with it; he also says to forgive those who trespass against you and to turn the other cheek. And he's not too kind to hypocrites, either. Have you a different interpretation of Jesus' philosophy?

This is why I often vote republican.

I still don't get it, Johnny Mo. Other then say they're Christians, what has the GOP done to prove that in the past 25 years?

***rickster469, "Every thing the republicans believe in (actions are louder than words) is against the common good. I don't know how anybody can call themselves conservative and be against the common good."

And, how would you define "common good?" Is it socialism?

Johnny Mo, our government is founded on the concept of commonwealth, another way of saying 'the common good.' (Many of our states, such as Massachusetts and Kentucky, call themselves commonwealths.) Right now, those who control the GOP are roughly equivalent to the Pharisees and Sadducees, the high priests of ancient Judea; they use their religion to enrich themselves and keep power while they do nothing to help the people. If Jesus were around these days, at what right-wing Christian church do you think he'd start throwing the moneychangers out of the temple?

As Colleen pointed out, it's very hard to be a Christian; I don't criticize you for trying to act as one, but please, as Jesus instructed, don't be a hypocrite about it.

RSJ and colleen,

When Obama came to the Senate he chose super-hawk Joe Lieberman as his assigned mentor. That's not "flawed analysis," it's a fact.

And, when Lieberman was in danger of losing the 2006 Connecticut primary to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, Obama came to Lieberman's aid. In summary,

"Two weeks after Lamont announced his U.S. Senate bid in March 2006, Obama flew to Connecticut to loudly endorse Lieberman. As the keynote speaker at the Connecticut Democratic Party's $175-per-head Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner, Obama proclaimed: "I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it. I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf."

According to Associated Press writer Stephanie Reitz, Obama and Lieberman entered the room together and 'worked the crowd in tandem,' despite the considerable contingent of Lamont supporters who often booed Lieberman. Interestingly, the AP and Hartford Courant have reported that Lieberman was Obama's mentor when the latter joined the Senate in 2005. The New York Times said it was part of a program to pair veteran senators with freshman; according to the Hartford Courant, Lieberman claimed Obama had picked him."

In August 2006, Lamont won the Democratic nomination in spite of Obama's endorsement of Lieberman. Then, in late October 2006, one week before the general election (and long after polls showed Lamont would lose to the now "Independent" Lieberman), Obama sent an email to his supporters in Connecticut asking them to vote for Lamont.

In other words, Obama's email was only political expedience, helping to cover the fact that (as I said) he had "campaigned FOR Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race, and helped him DEFEAT the anti-war Democrat candidate Ned Lamont."

Obama is NOT progressive. He is explicitly running to the Right of Hillary Clinton, as a "centrist" who will work "across the isle" with Republicans and may appoint Republicans to his Cabinet. He is a war hawk who threatens to invade Pakistan and use first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran (both war crimes).

Read:

"The Obama Illusion"
http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/14089

"Obama's Game"
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04242006.html

"The Obama Myth"
http://www.counterpunch.org/sustar11042006.html

Johnny Mo ... well, actually i do give a **** what some 2000 year old book says that some people is god final truth. For me it isnt. For me it is more important what people do instead of what they talk about.

So, the government hasnt done these things to you? Lucky you.

It looks like .. when I take into account what your talking about, you only care about yourself. Like, you seem to agree with me that your government is doing all such things all over the place ... just not to you (yet) ... so, why care about other people? Fits perfectly to the other point: just make sure that these unborn babies see the light of the earth ... anything that comes afterwards is none of your busniness.

Just thinking - what exactly makes you thinking that this Jesus guy will welcome you later on?

It has turned into a discussion about Jesus. And once again, as I posted earlier, this proves that we need a clear and strong seperation of Churh and State. And I'm adding to it because I simply can't believe how someone could think that the unborn need more protection than those born and suffering right now. I don't know what the numbers are, but it would be interesting to compare the number of pregnant woman in the world right now with the number of living, breathing, and aware children who die everyday in this world. What about them?

In my opinnion, those who are in most neeed of protection are the born and starving around the world. I'll add to that all the children who have been killed as a result of war and will continue to be killed if the USA continues to keep the UN from doing its job. In my opinion, all those who have inhalled depleted uranuim need protection. Also, all those who live under repressive regimes that the USA supports need protection. Take a look at Africa. All the child soldiers, all the children used as guinea pigs for pharmaceutical companies. All those children who are forced to work in order to keep the family going on the rubber plantations, all the children living in toxic areas, such as the Niger Delta, and who will grow up with health problems.

In our own country, where children can't get a proper education nor healthcare, need protection. All the abused children need protection. And I'll add to that all the sexually abused children, especially by the Catholic Church, because most pedophiles are incarcerated and must let the people in the community know in which area they live after being released from prison or jail. I don't believe any priest has to let his congregation know that he's a pedophile.

Why is it that it's only the unborn that so many people seem to care about so much? What about those already living? Also, to be frank about it, what the world needs are LESS children, not more. But, "every sperm is sacred," and no woman deserves the right to make decisions over her own personal life. We can't have that, now can we? Only Father knows best.

Jesus Christ! Is this discussion about Obama or Jesus Christ?

Sometimes you guys in the so-called progressive net roots really disappoint me.

I truly don't understand how so many of you refuse to support Obama. We finally have a candidate with a truly progressive agenda. This is a man with virtually the same environmental platform as Dennis Kucinich. He has opposed the war, fights the influence of lobbyists in Washington, and inspires Americans from diverse backgrounds to become passionate about politics.

The real reason that you refuse to support the closest thing to an ideal candidate that the Democratic Party has nominated in my lifetime is cynicism. There's nothing inherently wrong with that; I consider myself a cynic as well. The problem is that for many of you cynicism has become such a part of your identity that you can't see a great thing when it's staring you in the face. This is an African-American who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia and was a community organizer on the south side of Chicago before becoming the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate in 2007 (granted, John Kerry also received this honor)- and he actually has a legitimate chance of becoming the president of the United States. Just 10, or even 5, years ago I would have thought that this was impossible. However many of you still refuse to support him over Hillary, who represents, at best, a return to the Bill Clinton era when nothing was accomplished outside of corporate friendly trade policy and a balanced budget. So, why do you refuse to support Barack Obama? Because you've staked so much on being uncompromising radicals that your entire belief system rests on the impossibility of a mainstream candidate having integrity. You refuse to do the difficult thing and question your cynical instincts, instead you take the easy way out, calling him an empty suit and returning to the comfort of your supposedly revolutionary blogs.

dumbo,

What you do not understand currently is that your anger directed at me makes you guilty of murder according to Jesus' teaching in Matt. 5:21-22.

My dear dumbo, the government has not done any of those things to me. See, here is a difference between you and I. You see yourself (and me apparently)as a victim of our government's misbahavior. I do not see things this way at all.

This world presents all of us with an odd mix of the ugly, the mundane, and the wonderful. I think it is healthy to appreciate all the beauty, heroism, courage, and kindness as much as one can. Governments come and go on this planet. I do think that ours is better than most, and I am grateful for the men and women that have made it what it is... but it is far from perfect.

I have not here defended "a system." I am not defending killing. I am not going to attack anyone or ask you to do any such thing. I will be going to the polls in November and voting... that is all. I will not be solving the world's problems. I will not be choosing a Savior. I'll be picking out one of a few flawed people to serve as the CEO of a flawed country that will not last forever. I have only said that I prefer Obama over Hillary and most of the Republicans over the two of them.

I do not look to the government to save me or provide for me or keep me "safe"... not in the least little bit. God does that... and I will place all of my faith and trust in Him to do so.

Johnny Mo,

so, you want to help all the unborn babies?

So, why are you voting for the people that do care shit about born babies? People that dont mind killing born and unborn babies all over these place? Do the unborn babies in Iraq have less right to exist? What would Jesus say about clusterbombing third world countries for oil and profit?

And for what? To keep you SAFE? What have the unborn babies in Iraq done to you that threatens your life? So, in contrast to the people you are electing that will happily do NOTHING for you but screw you? The people in Washington allowed the companies to steal your pensions. They allowed the companies to lay you off.
They allowed the drug industry to press the last penny out of your purse. And you really think the evil is somewhere in Iraq?

I am angry? Yes I am. Because I never ever will understand how well-minded christians can sit down and find reasons and reasons and reasons to defend a system that kills and destroys all over the planet ... for the profit of a few.

It is darn simple: you should not kill. End of story.

colleen,

Yes, that interpretation of Jesus' teaching might be the correct one. In any case, History has borne out the truth of the moral.

Again, I am not enthusiastic about war. I am however pleased to have a president who will use troops if neccessary. I think you (and vertually everyone else here) and I simply differ on the conditions.

Goodnight. Sleep well.

God bless you too Johnny Mo :)...and I hope you come back and meet people here who will treat you with dignity

grumpy old lady

Not everyone who says they are a Christian is and some of them do evil. Bush has born bad fruit. He waged a war for profit ..for oil.. and he hid his real motivation with lies..and that type of person has been written about in the New Testament:

Matthew 7: 15 to 23

15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

.....................

Not that you should make the above Bible quotes part of your own belief system...but from a Christian's point of view it would explain why there has been evil coming out of the Christian religion sometimes. Its a good religion imo that has been abused and used sometimes for evil.

Johnny Mo

Christ may have instructed them to buy swords so that part of the prophecy about how he would die would come true..because he said two
swords were sufficient..but the moral and the instruction was:

He who lives by the sword will die by the sword

colleen, "War is a bad choice and should be avoided and not entered into for financial gain. War is a last ditch effort after everything else has been tried imo."

Agreed.

colleen, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

The answer is yes. Cain got it wrong.

grumpyoldlady, "With respect, much of that [Christian] "history" is hard to defend."

Not defending it. The principle, however, is not invalidated by its misapplication.

grumpyoldlady, "I think we all must be very careful when finding ways to convince ourselves that doing violence on other human beings is sometimes okay."

Again, agreed.

grumpyoldlady, "Perspective is reality."

Wrong. Reality is reality. The challenge is in finding it.

God bless you all.

Meanwhile, Obama, as a D.C. outsider, said in 2002 that a war in Iraq would be "a dumb war. … A war based not on principle but on politics."

Hillary might be forgiven for not having the same insight as Obama in recognizing a "dumb war." But she has absolutely no excuse for failing to recognize that Bush was a dumb individual and that giving him authorization to use force was a dumb idea. Until she acknowledges her role in enabling a dumb president to prosecute a dumb war, she is unqualified to become president.

"I am not advocating war, I am advocating the resistance of evil… sometimes by waging war. Some wars are just. Hitler needed to be stopped… as did Saddam. There is a long tradition in this respect in Christian history."

With respect, much of that "history" is hard to defend.

The Crusades.

The witch trials in Europe and America.

The promulgation of the myth that the Jews were "Christ-killers" by the German Catholic and Christian churches in the years leading up to the Holocaust.

The destruction of aboriginal cultures and people by missionaries determined to bring God and Anglo-Saxon cultural norms to the "savages."

The Biblical rationalization for the enslavement of non-white people.

All of these deeds were done in the name of combating "evil." At the time, they were seen as perfectly justified, a logical expression of the Christian world view. Today, we look back at them with distain and regret.

Perhaps, "evil" is in the eye of the beholder. In every case above, violence was perpetrated on the victims for what was deemed to be their own good. One could argue the same of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a terrible human being and tyrant. The world will not miss him. But the Iraqi people did not ask us to invade their country, destroy their homes, businesses and infrastructure, contaminate their land with radioactive debris and kill their loved ones in horrific numbers. I would have a very hard time looking an Iraqi mother in the face whose children were blown apart by American cluster bombs and say, "I know it's painful, but we did it for your own good. Saddam Hussein was an evil man."

One has to wonder how she would define "evil."

I think we all must be very careful when finding ways to convince ourselves that doing violence on other human beings is sometimes okay. I believe that this is Osama Bin Ladin's rationale. It seems to me that violence justified by religion is a very slippery slope. Life is either sacred or it is not. Whose life is precious and whose isn't? Who is expendable? Some people viewed the Americans that died on 911 as expendable, sacrficed on the altar of a higher ideal. Is taking someone else's life justified so long as you believe you're doing it for the right reasons?

Perspective is reality.

May Allah have mercy on you Johnny Mo

I think we are forced to make decisions that include evil choices and we are not spirtiually aware enough to know how to react...but always under all conditions violence should be minimized.

I think it would have been possible to have stopped Hitler earlier and there would never have been a Holocaust. The world was involved in evil beliefs of racism and nationalism and no concern for the lives of others and that led to Hitler. (Am I my brother's keeper?)

"Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

War is a bad choice and should be avoided and not entered into for financial gain. War is a last ditch effort after everything else has been tried imo.

Frankly colleen, I agree with most of that last paragraph.

colleen, "Can you cite in the Bible where it was written that the Lord told Peter to buy the sword?"

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords.""That is enough," he replied.
Luke 22:36-38

As you pointed out, Christianity is not easy, and this text is one of the harder ones for anyone.

In any case, do you think it was right to oppose Hitler with military force?

Johnny Mo

The Christian religion is not an easy religion. Its easy to say one is forgiven and to be loved by God ...but to live as christ did is not easy.

I do not believe that Bush is a Christian and he has lied about his religious faith. He enjoyed giving the death sentence when he was Governor of Texas. (You will know them by their works.)

Can you cite in the Bible where it was written that the Lord told Peter to buy the sword?

Yes I know of the arguments for a just war. Many religious leaders before Iraq was attacked did not consider that war a just war.

"I think it is my responsibility to defend the one attacked."

I think anytime someone deals with a person its important to remember that is a human being and equal in God's eyes to everyone else...even if they are committing an evil act. I love the idea of when saying good bye saying, "God bless you". It helps remind us that the other person is a child of God also ( but I don't say it because of a possible negative reaction..still one can think it)

colleen,

I am not advocating war, I am advocating the resistance of evil... sometimes by waging war. Some wars are just. Hitler needed to be stopped... as did Saddam. There is a long tradition in this respect in Christian history. I will not argue it here. If you are interested, read Augustine.

As far as Peter goes... why do you think the Lord commanded him to buy the sword in the first place?

On loving my enimies... What do I do when one person is butalizing another? Do I stand by and watch? Do I just express love for both? I think it is my responsibility to defend the one attacked.

Johnny Mo

Christ never advocated using war and he avoided getting involved with government. (Render unto caesar that which is caesars and unto God that which is God's) Christ chastised Peter when Peter used his sword against a Roman soldier who had come to take Christ to be crucified.

If you love your enemies can you kill them?

sphene, i think obama is a trojan horse! even, look at his voting record in '07, most liberal. I,m 66, & involved in civil rights/propeace at the time. the march on washington of november '69 (wh/has seemed to go down th memory hole) was stolen ban incredible performance by richie havens)Carried on the thrust of what Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and yes, mccarthy (I remember hi peace signing a fellow teacher in a conservative district injr the next day after MCCarthy's showing.) No, McCarthy & kennedy were not perfect, as is Obama not perfect.
To solidify a victory vs the repugs you need not only to be right, but you must have insparation. not only rae Ted Kenned & Barak Obama right, but they are the most inspirational forces in the country.

***rickster469 January 31st, 2008 4:48 pm, "What I don't understand is why any Christian would ever vote for a Republican."

Well, rickster, I suppose that I can understand why, from a liberal perspective, you would say this. Most liberals that I know think that they care about people more. I don't know that that is true. Why would I vote Republican? Consider this:

1. I think God wants me to champion the weakest and most helpless among us. Right now those who need championing are unborn human beings. I'll vote for anyone who will do this.

2. I think it is my responsibility to care for my fellow man (and woman). I think it is a disaster that people would think that this is the government's responsibility.

3. I don't think we should be spending our children's money. In this respect Bush has been a disaster.

4. I do think that it is right to take a stand against evil and tyranny. This is not to say that every war is a just war, but some are. I think Bush has done his best when it comes to foreign policy. I realize that in this forum such words are anathema... but I think, in broad strokes, his decisions after 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been right.

This is why I often vote republican.

***rickster469, "Every thing the republicans believe in (actions are louder than words) is against the common good. I don't know how anybody can call themselves conservative and be against the common good."

And, how would you define "common good?" Is it socialism?

"How the heck do you think we got stuck with Bush for 8 years"

He stole the election and nobody cared.

Ralph Nader's 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee website:

http://www.naderexplore08.org/

I'm on his email list, and thinking of sending a $300 donation.

Oh, dear God, not that again. Please, haven't we had enough of spoilers coming into the election fray and throwing the race to the Republicans? How the heck do you think we got stuck with Bush for 8 years, and before him, his daddy? Remember Ross Perot?

I'm certainly not voting for Hillary, but I will consider Obama, especially if he picks Edwards for his running mate, if Edwards will consider being on the bottom of another Dem ticket again. We need a progressive voice like Edwards to forge ahead and to win over the white male southern vote.

That's my current thinking at the moment.

Rickster - I've voted for candidates from many different parties over the years, but I have yet to find any candidate from any party that represents all the "issues of the American people." Trouble is, those "issues" are different for all of us, so the perfect candidate for some Americans is the worst candidate in the world for others. Many of my perfect candidates have lost their bid for office. C'est la vie. I guess I just prefer to be more optimistic, and figure that even if my candidate doesn't win, maybe something good will come of it. (George Bush kind of blew this theory for me, but holding on to my optimism I like to thing of him as a weird anomaly.)

I just can't be that bitter when others don't vote the way I think they should, and I just can't view the candidates I don't support as evil, horrible minions who don't care about our country or our people (even George isn't evil or horrible, just deluded and dumb as a stump). If Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination, I will most likely vote for her. If it's Obama, I'll probably vote for him. Why? Because I don't see eye-to-eye with any of the Republican candidates. If there's a third party candidate on the ticket, I'll consider voting for him or her, if I like what they have to say. One thing's for sure, there will be no perfect candidate on the ballot. Voting is (and always has been) about choosing the lesser of two (or three, or four) evils, so cast your vote and let the chips fall where they may. Instead of getting pissed, get proactive.

"Life is just a bowl of cherries. So live, and laugh at it all."

Bob K. wrote: "Aren't you forgetting that Obama campaigned FOR Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race, and helped him DEFEAT the anti-war Democrat candidate Ned Lamont?"

Get it straight, Bob K. -- Obama made some speeches for Lieberman but once Lamont was the Dem nominee, he supported him. Also, Lamont is now supporting Obama for president.

Here's the AP story from October 26, 2006:

"Lamont Gets Lift from Obama"
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/10/26/lamont_gets_lift_from_obama_lieberman...

The rest of your analysis is flawed as well. I suggest you go to the Obama site and read what he has to say.

Anecdotally, I have talked to many people, including a few Republicans, who are disgusted with the mess Bush has left us who would vote for Obama, but never for Hillary. May not be fair, but that's the reality.

Maybe I am delusional, but I just think Obama knows he has to toe the AIPAC line to even be in the running. Once he has some power I think he will do what he thinks is right, and I do think he knows right from wrong. I do not feel that way about Hillary, she is so AIPAC's bitch.

StrangeAnimals - You raise some good points, and one in particular that I've been coming to see more clearly in recent weeks. While it's perfectly reasonable for the spouses of the candidates to advocate for them, Hiliary Clinton is in a unique situation. Her spouse is a public figure in his own right. As much as Democrats despise George Bush, Republicans despise Bill Clinton. I think that having Hilary as the Democratic nominee runs the risk of mobilizing the Republican base and almost ensuring a Republican victory.

grumpyoldlady I won't run for office but I will support any body that represents the issues of the American people. After that I have the right to complain about the stupidly of the others.

As far a pissing and moaning over every candidates' imperfections, I don't worry about their personal imperfections I'm complaining about their stance on the issues the American public want to see addressed and so far none of the front runners are actually supporting the issues.

StrangeAnimals It doesn't really matter because if Obama or Hillary gets the nomination the republicans will get the presidency. it would be absolutely funny If it weren't so sad that the American people who call themselves democrats treat the election like a popularity contest. But what can you expect about a group of people who watch and glorify shows like American Idol and the Simpson's.

Reading these posts can be such a downer. Sheesh, what a bunch of whiners. I don't care which candidate, if any, people support. But if some of the folks who post here would devote as much energy to making their neighborhood/community/city/state/country/world (take your pick) a better place as they do pissing and moaning over every candidates' imperfections (some having more than others), maybe they would find something (ANYTHING) to feel positive about.

People who run for public office have their lives subjected to a level of scrutiny that few of us (myself included) would be willing to submit to. I can't imagine having every word I ever said or deed I ever did put under that big microscope and analyzed ad nauseum by the media and the public. I may not like a candidate's policies, but I can't help but respect anyone who's willing undergo the process.

Don't like the way the world is shaping up? Pissed off about how our leaders are running things? Think you can do better? Put your money where your mouth is! Quit snivelling and run for office yourself. Who knows, maybe you'll actually make this world a better place.

To those who would pine for a Clinton re-presidency, ask yourselves these questions:

Does America really want four or eight more years of fighting the same tired old partisan, ideological battles as we've been fighting for the past sixteen?

Does America really want Bill Clinton haunting the White House like some presidential poltergeist, knocking over the historical facts of his presidency in an endless and self-serving attempt to rewrite his personal legacy?

Does America really want the decisions of the first female president in American history constantly and inevitably picked apart and second-guessed by the media, and by her political opponents, as being influenced or even introduced by her ex-president husband?

Does America really want Bill Clinton, though prevented by the 22nd Amendment from actually becoming Vice-President, becoming the de facto Vice-President, risking serious confusion within the executive branch by seriously undermining the unfortunate soul who really is her Vice-President?

Does America really expect a man who plays with fire again and again, only to somehow and amazingly rise out of the ashes like some philandering phoenix, to suddenly change his ways and listen to his better angels when once again at the pinnacle of power?

Should Democrats be concerned that by battering Obama, a Clinton victory in the race for the Democratic nomination might well come at the cost of black voters, who could blame her for Obama's defeat and stay home come November?

Should Democrats be concerned that, by injecting himself back into the American body politic, Bill Clinton gives the GOP a highly plausible route to victory, especially if Republicans were to finally wake up and nominate their one candidate, Senator John McCain, who has broad popular appeal? By making the 2008 election a referendum on them, rather than on the last eight years of Republican rule, the Clintons risk rallying depressed and fractious Republicans to bind their wounds and renew their purpose: preventing Bill from returning anywhere near the Oval Office.

Bill is unfortunate for Hillary. Mrs. Clinton has generally been a strong advocate for change, and is a formidable candidate in her own right. America would likely be well-served by her presidency, more, at least, than the presidency of George W. Bush. Tired clichés notwithstanding, Mrs. Clinton's election would indeed represent a remarkable shattering of a glass ceiling a half century or more past due to be broken.

But the plain fact is that a Hillary Clinton presidency would always seem a co-presidency, and no one would be well-served by having such a two-headed monster in the Oval Office, not least Mrs. Clinton. Before Democrats, as is their wont, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, they would do well to recognize not just the dangers inherent to a Clinton presidency, but the unlikely event that there will ever be one.

Yeah it's just too bad that Obama is just another AIPAC shill. Therefore, it'll be business as usual

RSJ

Call me a cynic but I think Bob K. is here to disinform people about Obama.

Thank you for clearing up the inaccurate information

OBAMA BACKED LAMONT :)

Little Brother January 31st, 2008 3:19 pm "And all of this sententious blather about who is the True Heir to The Mantle of the Kennedys is utterly gratuitous Happy Horseshit."

I get a good laugh every time the Kennedy name and Camelot mentioned in an article.

Johnny Mo January 31st, 2008 2:49 pm "I am a conservative Christian who usually votes Republican."

I'm an atheist with a lot of Christian friends. Their good people who live their beliefs, I grew up in the Christian belief system so I know what is preached. What I don't understand is why any Christian would ever vote for a Republican. Every thing the republicans believe in (actions are louder than words) is against the common good. I don't know how anybody can call themselves conservative and be against the common good.

If my choice is between a republican (Any one will do), Hillary or Obama I'll vote for Nader. Don't think he'll get it but he would be by far the best choice.

Ralph Nader's 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee website:

http://www.naderexplore08.org/

I'm on his email list, and thinking of sending a $300 donation.

Remember all those self-righteous jokes about how all those Axis of Evil-type countries hold free elections-- where one is "free" to vote for a single candidate?

Turns out that the Choiceless Choice is what's for dinner here in Amerika, too.

It becomes clearer by the day that the electoral process is very much what RD Laing called a "social phantasy". Thus, the usual suspects will dismiss the suggestion that somehow candidates are pre-selected and winnowed by complex and complicit spins and skews by the political elites and the corporate media. Not at all! they will aver; it's simply that the political process is working as advertised, and We the People have spoken.

Yeah, right.

And once Obama is officially crowned Democratic Pied Piper of 2008 (admittedly preferable to the Nexus 6 Hillary model), in short time he will have become the obvious choice all along. It's all about the cognitive dissonance, stupid!

Incidentally, the cutesy disingenousness of the ending, which simultaneously remarks on the craze to "get in line behind Obama" while doing just that, is deplorable.

And all of this sententious blather about who is the True Heir to The Mantle of the Kennedys is utterly gratuitous Happy Horseshit.

Obama may well be anointed the Pied Piper in the guise of the Good Shepherd, but I fear I'll remain one of the lambs who strays from the flock.

I am a conservative Christian who usually votes Republican. I visit Common Reams often for my own entertainment... and to inform myself of what Americans on the far left are thinking. At least you guys believe in something.

It is obvious to me that Hillary does not. She believes in one thing... herself in power. I think it is scary. Obama, though wrong on every issue, appears to me to be an honest guy (OK, maybe some crooked stuff in the closet) who really believes what he is saying. I think I could actually sit and have a conversation with the man. If I were a lefty, I could vote for him... but not for Hillary.

I would be cheering for Hillary, she's the weaker candidate, but for the possibility that she actually might get elected. So... I'm rooting for Obama, just in case the Republican candidate tanks.

If we're down to four, and three of them are Clinton, McCain and Romney, why would anyone have trouble (duh?)
choosing Obama to endorse? The author made the case.

countess,

Hillary will "work with Lieberman and Co. to promote more wars"?

Aren't you forgetting that Obama campaigned FOR Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race, and helped him DEFEAT the anti-war Democrat candidate Ned Lamont?

Aren't you forgetting that, as a freshman Senator, Obama chose Lieberman to be his official mentor?

Aren't you forgetting that Obama has said Pakistan is the "right battlefield" for the U.S. and he will order air strikes and ground forces into Pakistan, with or without Pakistan's permission?

Who would do more to promote new wars, Hillary or Obama? I think it's an open question. We don't know the answer.

We may now see the rise of a third-party, anti-war candidate (unless Mike Gravel wins the Democratic nomination). I would probably vote for an independent anti-war candidate.

Nader has also said he will consider running if Obama is the Democratic candidate.

He was asked the question on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" before the Iowa caucuses. At that time he said he would not run if John Edwards won the Democratic nomination, but would not make that same commitment if Obama won, because Obama does not have a "progressive agenda."

Nader might run.
I would vote for him.

I suspect he will only run if Clinton is the candidate.

Ha i didnt watch democracy now when I typed that suspicion. I guess I was right.

A tip for those of you who are going to vote for Clinton because you think she has a better chance of winning in November: Ralph Nader was just on Democracy Now! and there was a strong insinuation that he'll only run for president if she's the nominee. I know some of you are afraid he would take votes from her. Not from me. I wouldn't vote for her: I have problems with war and poverty. She apparently does not.

The choice is not only between republican and democrat. There is the Green Party, as well as other parties.

This election is going to be another sham, with 'progressives' voting for a candidate that doesn't represent their views.

'I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get it.' Eugene Debs

Vote Green. Why pull a Charlie Brown and have the football snatched from you again, after believing this time that the democratic party is going to allow you to kick the ball. Really.

so it goes

All progressives should rally behind Obama Clinton is too beholden to defense industry lobbyists and will work with Lieberman and Co. to promote more wars.

Well, OK, Rosa. If it's so important to you to be one of the cool kids, then go ahead and endorse Obama. But he's an empty suit.

I resent the race being so narrow at this point. The other candidates should still be in to give choices, and even with those pulling out we didn't have great choices. I blame the media for molding the debate the way they did.

I mailed my edwards vote hours before he withdrew (expat Americans can vote by mail)

If it's Hillary vs. McCain I will not be able to vote.

The only good thing is the Rudy is gone.