What Counts as an 'Issue' in the Clinton-Obama Race?

McCain almost single-handedly sank the USS Forrestal in July of 1967. He was sitting in the cock-pit of his jet, on the deck of the Carrier USS Forrestal, and fired a missile across the deck into several other parked jets. Needless to say, that ignited the ordinances and fuel of the other jets and the conflagration cost many lives. Now I grant you that accidents can happen, BUT Mr. McCain told the story that the missile fired itself.......!!!!!!
It was after that event that Mr. McCain started taking more and more mission-flights over Vietnam. Perhaps he was eager to make amends, or perhaps, like so many of the upper-echelon Republicans, he has a deep, self-annihilalist complex..... we report.....you decide.

I'll see your Clinton Abomination, and raise you
one Constructive OBAMA-NATION.

Stop the negative thinking. Mad Dog McCain is never going to be president, because you guys there in America are not going to allow him to do so. Right ? Are you still paying attention ?

No one is supposed to make historical parallels anymore. But I remember a people defeated after a war with an economy in shambles, humiliated who put their faith on a man who would restore their "(1) values, (2) connection, (3) authenticity, (4) trust, and (5) identity". I remember those same people demonizing others and sanctifying without question their choice. In the hunger to win on behalf of the so called "progressive" movement, we have adopted the means of corruption, delusion and opportunism. The crafting of words, nuance, distortion and demonization.

No matter what you think, a woman like Hillary, has been turned into the most horrible human being. When did the Legal Services Administration and heading that become trivial? When did working on the Watergate Congressional Committee become nothing? When did it become insignificant to try to put a National Healthcare system and face the onslaught of the Conservative become a sham rather than heroic? Do I question her on the war vote? YES. Do I question so many other of her positions YES.

But please MR. Lakoff, in the effort to out do the conservative machine do not emulate their binary idiocies.

US policies are not gonna change. All I want is a better run government. People are served with small crafted policies, regulations and procedures. People are served with government officials that care about fairness. Change in America is and will be incremental.

I do find disturbing the mob that is willing to place it's faith, it's desire for inspiration, it's trancendency and transformation on a politician. What will the machine that made him do when he starts to crumble, Axelrod carefully created a story to sell to America, that story will face hardships. But will the supporters question the story? Who wants to lose faith? Who wants to feel that the one who inspired them is just another politician? This mob scares me, fueled by the egocentric blogosphere, who moved from dungeons and dragons too being Kingmakers.

Bill's choice of words may have been blunt. Too blunt for the naive faith based media and voter. Obama's anti war stance is a fairy tale. He claims better judgement. It was not judgement it was an opinion. His judgement was when he supported Kerry's vote and now demonizes for gain, Hillary's vote. If he was anti war, inspirational and full of values, why did he not lead an anti war movement? Why did he not speak in the Senate? Obama disdains the work of government just as the current tenants. Watch his interview with the Reno Gazette, the full hour not the clip the media and the fanatics pushed. He will delegate. Yet, when he had role in the community he did not notice that one of his funders was pillaging affordable housing. And when asked, he said he did not know and that affordable housing fails because of the 'neighborhood demographics" aka, poor African American people.

Finally, who gave the "torch of leadership" to Kennedy? When did he show leadership in the last twenty years? A few speeches? Why did the establishment white men unite against Hillary? It is a gender issue.

Finally on the progressive tag. This is a coalition that is doomed to the fate of the Conservative revolution. The anti war position unites them. But what beyond feeling good about America? Social and economic justice are not elements. The most this is a libertarian movement.

The New Cafe discussion mentioned above in my 8:37 AM post is not a thread that I started.

continued from above

Who was Kennedy? Kennedy was Pipeline. The Kennedy era was Wiamea Bay. Is life Pipeline? Is life Wiamea Bay or Mavericks or Burleigh Head or Hossegor? No, and the politics you encounter in life is never a matter of riding a wave. It's busting your butt just to get down to the junk surf. Overcast. Drizzel. Cold. No lines, just bumps. And yet...it does it again!

It does it again? Are you sure? Or was it that that Something in you dragged the old bod down...as It has many times before...out past the feudal town and into the drink? Bad rides, bad waves, so what? All the vibes changed out there in the sea, while the space itself resonated with something unchanged in you...that original face. Everyday consciousness surprised at the presense, so little of the right wavelengths left in shock-schlock land to light it up. Be your own lamps.

HELLO to all you out there with the strange metaphysics and yet with...pragmatic politics! I was actually for the Vietnam War at one time [age 12] because...Kennedy was for it. One fact was all he needed. One! The time required to get Vietnam to cozy up to China would have allowed us many years to win her over by diplomacy. One fact, but no one delivered. Now turns out it's the USA more than anyone that's turned China into the entity no one dare annoy in the slightest. Simply by sending over bonds. Wake up, Earl Pitz!

Participatory economics...fine! But let's not forget what Thom Hartmann sez re more participatory governance. George Lakoff is probably correct regarding what the Clinton wonks cannot see in terms of the potential still available. Sign up at New Cafe dot org, and drop in on the thread in the "Currents" forum entitled "Electoral and deliberative systems: IRV, Condorcet, etc.." I commend surfing to everyone, but when it comes to activism...be your own waves.

Icotler

Thank you very much for your insightful comments. I suggest you go join up for the Children's Crusade. Now, please excuse me while I go masturbate - intellectually of course.

Go to a rightwing political comment site. You won't find the kind of anger and division and name-calling you find here.

They go with what they have in common; we fight among ourselves with a holier-than-thou intensity that makes the powers-that-be smile.

What I don't see here is cohesion -- nothing that smacks of doing something concrete together. Say, like getting out into the streets and demanding -- what? How about all of us in every town picking a day to march until we're arrested -- all with signs that say "Bush is a war criminal", or with a sign that lists any one of the many crimes he's committed?

All the rest is intellectual masturbation.

Let's use the R-word, finally, at last....

Rich,

Wow, that was a lot of meat to give a bunny, but okay, I'll bite!

"There is zero chance that our system can be fixed through the officially-approved mechanisms. Whether overtly recognized or not, there's a war going on — the US ruling class against all the rest of us."

Don't know that I agree that there's a "zero" chance, but we can agree to disagree on that one. On the second point, I'll concede. The country was founded by people raised in a society with strict class distinctions. It was not the indentured servants (the vast majority of colonial immigrants) who made the rules or designed the institutions. The ruling class has always jealously guarded its turf, keeping the rest of us separate and using the mechanisms of government and commerce to protect their own interests (don't even get me started on compulsory schooling!). This isn't something new. It's actually something very old.

"Voting for candidates only works when there are decent candidates — but that's not our situation. We betray ourselves if we fail to recognize that."

Perhaps you're right. But in a free society we all have to define "decent" for ourselves. Some citizens are very pleased with the candidates we have. I may not agree, I may try to persuade them to look at someone else or take a different stand. But there is something fundementally arrogant in writing people off as deluded, stupid or incompetent if I don't agree with them or if my arguments fail to persuade. IMO, my failure to persuade others is not a reflection on them, but on my ability to persuade and the strength of my argument. And while I understand the inclination to withhold one's vote, I worry that it may be a form of resistance that could backfire. Isn't there a danger that this kind of resistance could be interpreted as apathy? Perhaps if voters are no longer interested in voting, they no longer need the opportunity?

Perhaps that was my primary point regarding anger and angry discourse. Of course social injustice should invoke righteous anger in anyone with an ounce of empathy or sentience. But social movements like the kind you speak of require more than passion. They require an ability to communicate that passion in thoughtful ways that will inspire others, not disparage them. A cause that is truly just can stand on its own merits, and people who feel powerless can be inspired to bring about great change. One only has to look at the deeds of Mahatma Ghandi, Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez to find hope for change in the face of incredible odds.

Rats! There I go into Twinklebunny mode again! :)

It seems obvious that, to the NYT editors, judgment is not so important as "experience." Never mind that Hillary's "experience" is restricted to padding up and down the White House corridors while her husband put together his second-echelon presidency. She has revealed, unmistakably, her amoral and second-rate judgment in helping to enable the Iraq invasion. She would obviously be equally mediocre as President, and for that reason she should never be allowed anywhere near the White House. And, incidentally, who wants to see her husband enabled to exploit further Giuliniesque maneuvers to exploit his connections for further profit? Obama is clearly the superior candidate.

Rockerbabe1,

The same could be said re Obama vis-a-vis the race card.

I'd love to see a woman as president, as long as she brought the female wisdom with her. I'm not sure Hillary would. Consider Maggie Thatcher and Golda Meir. A vagina should not be a qualification any more than should testicles.

"Hillary Clinton just received an endorsement from Ann Coulter! She claims that Clinton "is further to the right than McCain.""

Nah, that's not why Coulter likes Hillary. She likes Hillary 'cause she knows that if she wins the Dems' nomination, a Republican will win the general.

claudius,

The edit function doesn't work 'cause the DBA doesn't know the DB from his A. I've suggested that I (or someone else who knows SQL) might be able to help, but got no response.

S'okay...CD still has my support. After all, they're progressives and progressives always get things done...eventually. Gotta love us!

The boys' club is alive and well. Never misses an opportunity to portray Hilliary is a bad light or say disparging words. Obama is always portrayed as the "savior" of the party, but it isn't his party to save. And neither is it Hilliary's to loose. When all is said and done, all this nastiness will come back to haunt you boys and your skewed analysis.

edit not working

Again I see two solutions to this dilemma:

1.) Abolish the system and come up with a better one

or

2.) Some of us (including myself) run for political office so we get more progressives into political office to make meaningful change

grumpyoldlady (Feb 1st, 1:05 pm) -- Lend me your Twinklebunny ears for a second, because you have some brains. You're not at all hopeless. You can be salvaged.

Certainly it's true that "Anger without direction is nothing but noise." But I am not proposing that.

[Before getting to the meat of this, let me pause for a moment, to offer a word in defense of righteous anger. There is a certain legitimacy to raw anger. Anger is a correct & reasonable first response to injustice. By itself, it is an inadequate response to injustice. But it is an excellent foundation on which more constructive responses can be built.

And, on the other hand, the most paralyzing & crippling response towards great injustice, is docile acceptance. THAT is what the filthy Evilcrats & their apologists are all about -- getting you to somehow resign yourself to corporatists & warmongering imperialists, who however (like Obama) are skilled in the use of 'uplifting' language.]

OK, now the meat. We are at a time in our nation's history where the political system is breaking down. It is no ordinary time. Mechanisms that have sufficed since the 1930's are now failing.

There is zero chance that our system can be fixed through the officially-approved mechanisms. Whether overtly recognized or not, there's a war going on -- the US ruling class against all the rest of us. It's essentially a class war. The rulers want you to remain a Democrat, because the D's are a ruling-class institution, whose job is guiding the Dem half of the populace in paths that are safe for the rulers. To remain a Dem voter, and to swallow whatever slop the party dishes up, is to passively assent to this arrangement.

Therefore, your primary focus should be on resisting & criticizing the system, not on adapting yourself to it. You should be talking with your friends & family about the very real things that are wrong. You should be trying to make whatever contribution you can to elevating political consciousness. Accepting the slop of the Dem Party is the opposite of all that: it deadens political consciousness, & only makes your enemies stronger.

Voting for candidates only works when there are decent candidates -- but that's not our situation. We betray ourselves if we fail to recognize that.

You write that "it's...disingenuous to focus only on what is wrong with the system and/or the candidate(s) without offering any solutions...." // Well, looking at it historically, the "solution" has to be a break from the officially-approved mechanisms. It must have the form of a broad movement based on the interests of the bottom 80-90% of the population, rather than on the interests of the top 1%. It has to be what they call "radical" politics -- something that big business and the media are definitely not going to like, any more than they like Kucinich or antiwar protestors.

The 2 parties are really just a mechanism of social control. They're not a way for "the people" to express their will; they're a way for rulers to control the people -- partly by making them believe that they (the peeps) have some say (which they don't). Building a movement to oppose this takes time. But its sine qua non is political consciousness -- the type that socialists understand & try to cultivate; and that the big-business parties & media try to suppress & eradicate. Try reading http://www.wsws.org, to get a sense of what I'm talking about.

SavetheBOR (3:56) -- please go away. You're an idiot. No one here has to show you their "positive" credentials, to gain your approval. I've seen some dumb arrogant fools here, but you really take the cake.

Come on people...our best bet is Hillary Clinton. We can pay her less (just 73% of what any other candidate) and still be just as satisfied as we are with any other candidate of either party...

Lino, thank you for your response. You may very well be taking "positive steps", perhaps even contributing your time, energy, talents and financial resources to correct the ills of this country. However, I have not seen you write about what can, could, or should be done; you have a passionate audience in the CD group, ever thought of influencing your fellow posters to accomplish something? Perhaps by example?

Maybe the truth is you have a hybrid car, or you gave up your car and now only walk or ride a bike; you recycle; you have been frugal and have money set aside for retirement; you call, write, fax and email your elected representatives on issues of importance to you; you started your own group, like Code Pink, to get media attention for what you believe in; you write letters to the editor to keep important issues alive; you are running for a public office yourself, maybe mayor of your city; you started a publication to promote what you believe in and to encourage change; you are studying Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. and have committed yourself to non-violence as a way of fomenting change; you volunteer to speak to High School students about the Constitution and Bill of Rights; you demonstrate; you contribute money to groups working for the changes you want; you visit veterans with severe wounds or PTSD.....

or, like so many others here, do you just post on these sites in the bitch-o-rama? Please tell us the "positive steps" you are taking............ others might join you.

All this Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck nonsense is merely a ploy by the fascists to paint Mad Dog McCain as a moderate. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is a war criminal who not only enthusiastically killed thousands of Vietnamese people from his souped-up, armed-to-the-teeth jet bomber but now advocates, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," and plans to stay around in Iraq for a hundred years. As if this senile old fart even has one term of the presidency left.

savethebor,

i would answer the questions that you misdirected toward me, after first directing them to rich m. however, rich m did a very fine job of answering those questions, hope you were able to understand what he was/is attempting to inform you of. however, in the spirit of q & a, i'll add a bit. naturally, before i go throw up again over the mere thought of attempting social discourse with you.

seeing how you know very little about me, i find it neither analytical or intellectually (seems to be in short supply these days) stimulating to exchange thoughts with you. you have the audacity to label me, and probably many others here, as a "complaining loser" when in fact you may very well be the pot calling the kettle black. nor do you know of the "positive steps" i am actively involved in, which may or may not have a direct effect on your shallow thought process. btw, i'll try not to "waste" any more of my "time" or my "life" by reading any more of your posts.

here's the fact, savethebore: msm influenced voters in iowa, new hampshire and nevada. those voters in turn narrowed the field down to four. after tuesday, the field will be narrowed down to two. so, you think that's a workable system? so, we, the rest of america, get the choice between an eloquent black politician, or a grating white woman. one is unqualified, the other is certified dangerous. we're just wrapping up eight years of combined unqualified and dangerous. it's been a fucking blast, hasn't it?

think you can stomach the next ten months of hysteria while our brothers and sisters are spilling their blood and guts, in a hostile country, over our in-fucking-sane addiction to energy consumption? think you can wait for hillarious's immigration reform "with fair minded republicans"? what planet is she on? do you think the people in this country, currently in financial trouble, are anxiously awaiting hilllarious's "90 day moratorium on foreclosure" or her "5 year lock on interest rates"? what do you think the financial lords have to say about that? i'm just pissing all over myself waiting for obama's dialogue with hollywood over the sex and violence coming out of hollywood. or his proposal re: health insurance to make sure that those who can't afford it are required to pay "back premiums for not getting it in the first place". oh, yeah. as previously posted, how about this: obama and clinton's continued support, financially speaking, of the iraq war? how about obama's remarks last nite regarding iran? catch any of that? did it get your attention? obviously not, if you're supporting him.

hopefully your group of awakened citizens are more awake than you.

Rich,

"But then you wrongly try to resolve the awfulness of the dilemma by casting it as a mere matter of whether you personally prefer to be cheerful or angry. That's a false framing of what is really a very complex social & political question."

Well, if being angry accomplishes nothing except aggravating my ulcer, I opt for cheerful. Anger without direction is nothing but noise.

"Liberals always cave in to whatever slop the Democratic Party offers, then try to console themselves with weak promises to "do my best to hold my elected officials accountable." But there's no such thing as "holding officials accountable," in US society. If the last 7 years haven't convinced you of that, I can't imagine what would."

I agree completely!! I liked Mr. Kuncinich. I did everything I could think of to help him along. I sent him some moola, I mailed letters, I talked him up to anyone who would listen. His campaign pooped. What do you suggest I DO? Stand on a street corner and wail? Expatriate to Liechtenstein? Start a para-military group in my basement and start planning the overthrow of the government? (I hate guns, so that will never do). What you say about accountability is absolutely correct. Therefore, short of the options above, the only power I have left is my vote, for what it's worth. I could choose to not cast it at all, or cast it for a candidate that won't win as a personal statement of my displeasure with the field...a statement that no one gives a rats ass about and which will change nothing. So who's being real here?

When I cast my vote, it isn't because the candidate I vote for has lulled me into some Polly-Annaish state of blissful ambivalence. My point is that while it is good to have no delusions about the sincerity or qualities of the available candidates, it's just as disingenuous to focus only on what is wrong with the system and/or the candidate(s) without offering any solutions. Maybe you're right and it's all a bunch of crap. When you're ready to suggest some viable solutions, I'm all ears!

Twinklebunny ears, that is! :)

With Dennis Kucinich out of the race Ron Paul is
our only hope. Change parties and vote RP in your
local primary/caucus if it's not too late already.

I don't agree with RP on everything, but he is the one
DK endorsed. They voted against all the wars, the patriot
acts, etc.

Audio of Kucinich talking about Ron Paul as a running mate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By_zxa1qnj4

Dennis Kucinich asked about Ron Paul on Free Minds TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

LOL I saw that this morning about Coulter as well. She's got her panties all bunched up because she see's McCain getting the nomination...Clinton is farther to the right than McCain, I do have to agree with her on that...LOL

Oh sure, Ann Coulter. I dare you to vote for Hillary. You don't have the balls, lady. And neither does Rush, or Sawn or any of your other hateclub members.

There's that left/right thing again. I prefer to keep metaphor in poetry, the arts, music, etc. On what voting/ideological logical basis does Coulter base his conclusions?

But it's part of the myth-making apparatus to paint McCain as some sort of centrist, not intended to provide a boost to Hillary.

This just in (all of you might get a laugh):

Hillary Clinton just received an endorsement from Ann Coulter! She claims that Clinton "is further to the right than McCain."

re: grumpyoldlady (10:57 am)

I have no disagreement with those things that you label "reality," but your conclusions miss an important point, which is this: if you are compelled to vote for someone whose positions and interests are directly opposed to yours, then voting becomes a farce.

We have seen the long-term consequences of trying to settle for the better farce. To continue to do so is like hitting one's hand with a smaller hammer instead of a larger one, because technically speaking, the smaller hammer is closer to a regimen of healing.

I refuse to make my vote a farce.

Reagan was not Jack Armstrong, the All American boy. What he appeared to be to the naive was the opposite of what he was, a medicine man offering an elixir which proved to be toxic.
George Lakoff is one of my gurus but in this case the question is whether he got framed or is framing.
He certainly is not unaware of our shadow government which is composed of the self-styled elite of both parties who buy and sell politicians like they were a commodity. He is not unaware of the conflation of neoconservatism and the industrial/military complex. He knows his civics well enough to know that the President does not enact laws unless he is allowed to assume dictatorial power by an indifferent or cooperating Congress. And finally the Clintons are not without the charisma to unite. Without the lies and distortions of the media which is owned and operated by the shadow government, they would unite us again.

grumpyoldlady (10:57 am ) -- OK, that's the basic conundrum. Everyone knows all those things. You're seeing it very clearly down to "Chicken Little or Twinklebunny...Hmmm." But then you wrongly try to resolve the awfulness of the dilemma by casting it as a mere matter of whether you personally prefer to be cheerful or angry. That's a false framing of what is really a very complex social & political question.

Liberals always cave in to whatever slop the Democratic Party offers, then try to console themselves with weak promises to "do my best to hold my elected officials accountable." But there's no such thing as "holding officials accountable," in US society. If the last 7 years haven't convinced you of that, I can't imagine what would.

It's not a matter of whether you personally feel more comfy by opting for cheerfulness over anger. It's a matter of recognizing that the system itself doesn't work, and that if the more progressive half of the population continues to accept the garbage offered by the Evilcrats, the only possible outcome is disaster.

That's the basic mechanics of our society: the rulers know that if they can get you to accept Evilcrats with weak little promises about "hope," they can get you to accept whatever they do to you. They've already done 1) permanent war based on lies 2) shredding the Constitution 3) torture 4) spying on all citizens 5) plutocracy. You're getting ready to swallow an Evilcrat candidate who refuses to even bring any of those subjects up. If you want to characterize that as a decision in favor of "cheerfulness," you're just kidding yourself.

"I don't understand the appearance of the cheerfulness police.

If a situation is bad, then rationality demands that we see it clearly.
The mainstream media and mainstream candidates are fine for those who want to see "morning in America" without regard to the evidence. Please don't push delusional optimism here."

Yeah, I agree prof.

I've been taking a little breather because I was getting too personal in my posts - my bad. However, I encourage folks here to say it as they feel it - just maybe with just a little less personal rancor (which, again, I was guilty of).

There are damn few outlets for people with eyes wide open to go to, and I applaud CD for allowing this one to continue. Frustration will boil over because for progressives these are very frustrating times.

I'd like to think that we are all welcome here (save the trolls), including the angry and the sanguine, the hopeless and the hopeful, the calm and the frustrated. We need to work this stuff out and letting it out in a safe (and anonymous) way is a start.

Regarding negativity, I observe a few maxims:

1) Covering up problems with platitudes doesn't ultimately fix anything. Our society is failing, and headed for great heaps of trouble on many fronts.
2) I'm not negative with regard to politics, I'm just not buying the same age-old empty promises from the same class of plutocrats and their autocrats (politicians). The time for haircuts, suits-and-ties, smiles and vague feel-goods, has past.
3) It is the love of the good things in life -- family, food, drink, spare time, freedom, liberty, art, nature, economic self-determination, the world my children will grow up in, etc. which causes me to be concerned.

Denialists, apologists and minimizers see few problems, and therefore cannot offer solutions.

I tend to get my fill of negativity by reading the news, and escape to fiction for feel-goods. Some people are the other way around -- they enjoy horror, brutality, etc. in their fiction -- and turn to the news for feel-goods. Pretty twisted, and not very productive.

Excellent remark by seriousprofessor (7:10)!! The "cheerfulness police"!! How wonderfully accurate! That phrase is a keeper, all right.

It's entirely logical that people still clinging to the Democratic Party would be attacking "negativity" & "bitter, angry, depressing realist(s)." The whole phenomenon of clinging to the Democrats is essentially an exercise in averting one's eyes from reality. It's the ability to look at a pile of slop, and insist that it's just lovely.

Someone willing to vote for a Evilcrat is epitomized by the Obama voter, for whom the mere ritualistic chanting of the word "change" is sufficient reassurance that the candidate fully intends to stop the US wars.

Naturally, people who look at the world like that are not going to feel friendly towards "realists."

Sorry to rain on your negativity parade, guys!

I can only listen to so much "Wah, Wah, Wah" before I'm compelled to stick a pacifier in the pie hole.

Okay, let's try it your way and talk reality. In my opinion, Dennis Kucinich best represented the progressive point of view among this year's pool of presidential candidates. I didn't agree with all of his positions, but I liked his style and the clarity of his message.

REALITY: He was unable to muster enough support and raise enough funds to mount a viable campaign.

REALITY: Was he marginalized in the mainstream media? Yep. Was he marginalized in the debates? Yep.

REALTIY: All of the candidates that the MSM did not consider "frontrunners" suffered the same fate. Therefore, one could argue that the MSM pre-selected their favorite candidates and the American voters are just mindless sheep being led into the voting booth by the corporate elistists. That argument pre-supposes not only that the MSM is the only source of information that the mindless sheep have access to, but that the mindless sheep are truly mindless.

REALITY: Anyone who is really searching for a progressive candidate to support and vote for can find information through myriad resources outside of the MSM. Furthermore, the fact that the MSM's polling data and predicted outcomes were wrong in a number of the primary votes seems to indicate that it is the MSM that is being marginalized in this election.

REALITY: Other Americans did not agree with me about Mr. Kucinich.

REALITY: Mr. Kucinich is no longer running for president.

REALITY: Mr. Kucinich will not be the next president.

REALITY: I must now decide whether to cast my vote for someone else, or choose to obstinately vote for Mr. Kucinich anyway in order to make a personal statement that, in the grand scheme of things, means nothing to anyone outside of myself.

REALITY: I can lend my support to a third party candidate who has no better chance of actually winning the election than Mr. Kucinich, but who lets me satisfy my desire to buck the status quo and the two-party system that limits our choices.

REALITY: We are down to two options on the Democratic ticket and will soon be down to two options on the Republican ticket. Eventually, we will have one candidate from each ticket to vote for, along with a selection of third party candidates that generally represent the most extreme ends of the left and right continuum.

REALITY: Whether they are pure as saints or tainted as two-dollar whores, one of these candidates is going to be the next president.

REALITY: None of the remaining candidates represent my views on all the issues. Some are further off the mark than others, some aren't even on the radar. I'm aware of both their faults and their attributes.

MY REMAINING OPTIONS: Stand over my dead horse, beat my chest, tear out my hair and bellow about how the tainted one (who WILL be president whether I like it or not) is going to lead us to the Apocalypse. Hell, George Bush has left us with a gigantic clusterf**k, but even HE didn't manage to do that,

OR, make the best selection I can and then hope that the next president does a better job than the last one (granted, this is not a difficult bar to hurdle) and continue to do my best to hold my elected officials accountable.

Chicken Little or Twinklebunny.

Hmmm.

Okay, pass me the carrots.

Nancy Pace

Ah! I knew you were just joking.

Four words: ardent supporter of Israel.

Negativity is essential ! Humorous negativity is a valuable life skill. Negativity is a grounding skill and is absolutely necessary to balance twinklebunny positivism. Balance is what is needed, not positivism. Only from negativity do we find the path we must walk to find the balance. In Balance, negativism is equal to positivism in value. Twinklebunny change demands negative comment. We are doing our job well here.

I don't understand the appearance of the cheerfulness police.

If a situation is bad, then rationality demands that we see it clearly.
The mainstream media and mainstream candidates are fine for those who want to see "morning in America" without regard to the evidence. Please don't push delusional optimism here.

Interesting that Clinton's big line\lie re the Bush\Clinton dynasty is that it took a Clinton to clean up after a Bush. An astute observer would note the kinship between family Bush and "adopted son" Bill as the real connection.
The fact that the NYTimes endorsed candidates from both teams indicates essentially no light between parties.
Obama's ratcheting up the terror card was deplorable-especially remarking that we had taken our attention away from Latin America. Hillary nodded and that silly painted on grin...The one thing Obama has going for him in the pop culture superficiality contest is that he is smooth with a sophisticated polish, while Clinton comes across as clumsy with her "ahs", "wells", "you knows" that should have been trained out of her public speaking by junior high.... and that plastic frozen smile because her advisors advised against the dirty looks. She still can't hide the smugness though.
The thing Billary has going for it is brazen ambition.

Being a Sen from New York State does she receive campaign contributions from Israeli lobby. If so how objective could she be in brokering peace between the Palestinians and Israel?

RichM,

Was there any candidate that you did or do support? Just curious.

SavetheBOR (8:13) -- You asked me, "Are you waiting for the "perfect" candidate before you commit your time and resources? What does the perfect candidate look like to you? Could any human match your requirements?...

- It's hardly a question of "perfect." It is a question of "acceptable," or perhaps "reasonably good." A reasonably good candidate would be rock-solid against the war & the war machine; in favor of holding war criminals (like the Bush Gang) accountable for their crimes; and willing to speak loud and clear about the dangerous effects of out-of-control corporate power.

The two remaining whores of the Dem Party (one of whom you support) are not acceptable. Neither has stood up to Bush in any way. Neither is going to stop the occupation, or cut military spending, or interfere with corporate rule of America in any way. Neither is going to hold the Bush Mob accountable for what they've done, or reverse the damage that's been done.

I notice that you flatter yourself for being a taker of "positive steps," while the rest of us "complaining losers" on CD are "just involved in mental masturbation to make (our)selves feel good by putting people down." It's comic, that you -- someone with so little self-respect that you'd support a corporatist/militarist wrapped in pretty packaging, like Obama -- should presume to feel so superior.

Why are so many people on this thread unwilling to actually look at the records of Clinton and Obama, not to mention Mad Dog McCain, and see REALITY? If you want a touchy feely fascist in office just remember Baby Caligula's "compassionate conservatism." Unless the good manners crowd wises up, you can look forward to less and less potable water, less and less fuel, the extermination of most other species, and, best of all, no atmosphere! Remember that when you call someone else a "paranoiac" or a "loser".

Pretty good debate tonight. I thought that both candidates were articulate and handled themselves well. Wolf Blitzer annoyed me at times, taking things off topic instead of just letting the candidates answer. I am ready to hear about some other issues, like global warming, social security, etc, as it seems we've covered the Iraq War, immigration and health care issues pretty thoroughly in the course of other debates. I'd like to see another You-Tube debate, with questions from the general public. I don't think I'd be unhappy with either Obama or Clinton as the Democratic nominee. But I still worry that Mrs. Clinton would be a more polarizing candidate, and more likely to be beaten by a strong Republican like McCain.

We shall see.

Obama is a light weight.
Clinton is a prostitute
McCain is a nut
Romney is a member of a nut culture
Huckabee is a simpleton and a fool
Paul is an extremist
Gravel is too good for America

Take the nut. Americans are comfortable with that. Bomb,bomb,McCain, the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!

lino

I challenge you to answer the questions from my last post to RichM.

You asked recently, which is worse, a "depressing realist", or a "delusional" woman

how about, which is worse, a complaining loser, or someone who takes positive steps rather than wasting time and life by "throwing up"?

Lino

A depressing realist...hands down. Garsh, that was a no-brainer!

Dear 90% of CD bloggers:

WHY ARE YOU HERE? Do you subscribe to CD to be informed and take action to make a difference? Or are you just involved in mental masturbation to make yourselves feel good by putting people down?

You are aware and informed! You are valuable, but, from your position of anonymity, you are more abusive and vitriolic than any O'Rielly or Hannity. Is that what you want? Is this the only place in your lives that you can get reaction from people. Why are you wasting your research, facts, and information in a way that results in.........nothing.

I am grateful to CD for compiling information that I need to know, to be informed, to do research, to take action.

You are bright, you care, you are informed. Your information and passion can have significant impact! Please, find a way to direct your energies to make change.

I don't care if you're Sara Leah or Samuel Levi Cohen, I want to marry you. My wife and I just fight too much.
I know we could get along. I love what you say.
I have a problem, though, my wife and I are still legally locked in connubial bliss, having suffered through 56 interminable cycles of the sun.
I'm almost of a mind to chuck it and jump the fence for Ron Paul. He's courageous and honest but a little light on 'progressivity.'
nels Belfast, Maine

Obama leading in the home stretch ..

hillary clinton has overcome an amazing tide of negative press over 16 years by talking about the issues and showing us what a hard worker she can be given the office. i am impressed with her, and if given the opportunity, i will vote for her in november.

For clarification on comments from RichM:

I wrote about two distinctly different things: one making a commitment to support a candidate rather than just complaining; and two, contacting members of congress about doing the job they were hired to do.

The 2008 New Year Resolutions were sent to each member of congress from the Awakened Citizens group, a non-partisan effort, a citizen message. There was no message to members of congress in support of any party or candidate.

RichM wrote:
Then he continues, "I have made a decision to stop nit-picking all the faults and foibles of the most progressive candidates…"
- Again, this is the classic language of the rationalizer. Little itsy-bitsy faults like voting to fund the occupation, refusing to speak directly of Bush's crimes, being cozy with AIPAC, saber-rattling towards Iran & Pakistan, being quiet as a churchmouse on torture, warrantless wiretapping, & pre-emptive war — all that is flung out of sight, out of mind, & buried beneath minimizing words like "foibles" and "nitpicking."

Why not defend Bush by saying you're "tired of nitpicking about his foibles. After all, no president is perfect"?

I wrote of progessive candidates, RichM, how did you make the leap to interpreting my statements as defending Bush? The progressive candidates I respect are against pre-emptive war, torture, warrantless wiretapping, not saber-rattle about Iran, etc...By the way, the definition of foible is "minor weakness...slight flaw or defect." The media try to make big deals of minor things, like if someone experimented with drugs when a youth, or whether one prefers diamonds or pearls. I hope this provides you with the perspective between minor and major issues.

Re: warrantless wirtapping, I wrote to the President of Verizon, registered letter, to cancel my service. I am contacting congress members daily about FISA legislation, to not let the telecoms off the hook.

RichM, I have some questions for you:

Are you waiting for the "perfect" candidate before you commit your time and resources?
What does the perfect candidate look like to you? Could any human match your requirements?
Other than tearing up people's comments on blogs, what are you DOING to make a difference?

I thank maggie50 for her observations.

Maggie & Ruth

Thanks for interjecting a couple rays of sunshine into the paranoic rantings of the Doom-And-Gloom crowd. Whatever their politics (some I like, some I don't), I'm fairly excited at the prospect of the first woman or first black president. I hope one of them wins. Of course, that makes me delusional. I'm okay with that. I'd rather be delusional and uplifted than a bitter, angry, depressing realist.

Pass me that half-full glass...

Shada

Excuse me, but just what "small separate steps" has Clinton accomplished in the Senate? I'm not defending another corporate shill like Obama by any means, but do you consider enabling the depraved degenerate in the White House to attack a country which had not attacked us, threatening to invade another country which has not attacked us, basically allowing the evisceration of the Constitution - see Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments plus habeas corpus and posse comitatus along with the Geneva convention's prohibition on torture - and you want this sort of scum, and I do mean Hillary Clinton, in the White House?

Most voters based their choice on perceived personal qualities that are shaped by the candidates' advertising and reinforced by news media coverage.

Hillary and Barack are political and issue twins. Between the two it doesn't matter, materially, who wins. For the overwhelming majority of us our lives will remain as they do today.

Lakoff faults Senator Clinton for incrementalizing, getting things done in small separate steps. I think this is a skill. It takes hard intellectual work to visualize and then carefully implement step by step. Even Senator Clinton's Republican adversaries praise her hard work and attention to details. What has Senator Obama's "Bold" vision accomplished in the Senate? The Senate is intended to be deliberative and "wonkish". Lakoff's entire article sounds like somehting out of the Religious Right's handbook to vote for a feeling rather than any concrete policy.

The media knows the difference between Obama and Hillary. Obama is BLACK whereas Hillary is rumored to have a VAGINA and (on special rare occasions we can dwell on for days) VISIBLE CLEAVAGE.

The only time I have seen more interest in visible cleavage is from a very hungry baby.

I also agree with RichM. Lakoff and his cohorts are beyond overrated.

As for the endless Reagan love fest, what Lakoff (and O bomb em) fail to understand (or won't admit) is that, yes, Reagan connected with people on an emotional, "values"-laden level; but not the values that progressives would ever want to emulate. Reagan played on hatred: racial hatred, hatred of the poor, hatred of the Soviet Union, etc. He kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi (where the three Civil rights workers were murdered 16 years earlier), talking about state's rights. He excoriated "welfare queens"; he referred to the Soviets as an "Evil Empire". THAT is how he won, and it is nothing the left should (or even could) try to adopt.

The window dressing of "values" and "character" and "authenticity" is just that: window dressing. Connect to voters base fears, prejudices and hatreds and you will likely succeed. Make that connection while draping it in rosey rhetoric, tossing out endless buzz words, and you have an easy way to cover your ass and convince linguistic spinmasters like Lakoff that you're victory was based on something less ugly.

To his credit, I don't think Obama would ever do this. But ultimately, he's the epitome of an empty suit. He mouths vague platitudes that satisfy the public's most superficial desire for reassurance (after seven years of plunder at the hands of the neo-cons) while serving the same corporatist, imperialist agenda as Mrs. Clinton and, largely, as Messrs. McCain and Romney. Eventually, the public will grow weary of Obama's schmaltzy little reassuring, rhetorical prozac routine. The only question is, can he ride on it long enough to get the nomination and, potentially, the White House?

You know what, though? The corporatocracy could care less. Yes, ideally they would like endless GOP rule, so that they could plunder with little restraint. But they know that they have to give *a little* to protect their hegemony over the system. So, okay, they'll give the people Hillary. Oh wait, she's thoroughly exposed as the power-hungry, unprincipled shill who'll say anything to win? Fine, fine, here's this dude Obama. Look at how soothing and inspiring he is. He'll make you feel good and convince you, for a while, that real change is going to happen. Now go vote for him and shut up and let us get back to our corporate-imperial plunder.

"The country has become so corrupt it has become an accepted way of life."

Hear Hear! That's the regrettable truth. And any nation that finds itself in such a state is headed for a fall, as history has shown over and over and over again. A few days ago someone commented that the state of the union is what it is because that's what people want. If it wasn't what they want, things would be different. And Scott Ritter has repeatedly said that Americans no longer act as citizens, only as consumers. And America's non-citizen consumers are bending over and grabbing their ankles, as they do every four years. The doctor will not be examining your prostate. He or she is here to make you a gift of The Purple Shaft.

Look at how desperate Lakoff and progressive pundits like him are to win instead of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. Obama is a corporate centrist, and Lakoff knows it. Shame on him. Adequate campaign spending limits, now!

maggie50

Er, compassion for whom? The Swineocrats who are selling your ass down the river?

Do any of you people ever see the glass as 1/2 full?

Are you this angry and mean spirited in your daily life?

I grew up poor, black and female in South Central LA. Believe me, the Crips and Bloods can show more compassion than most of you "progressives".

Daniel David

So you think the thread is "rich with attacks, lies and uselessness." I'll tell you what's fucking useless - Mr. Lakoff's ivory tower prognostigations that have nothing more to do with reality than Alice Through the Looking Glass.

I agree with RichM.

I also think that Lakoff lovers are naive. Do we really think that rich Corporate Dems like Kerry are just to dumb to communicate clearly. Well, "I would have invaded Iraq even had I known there were no WMDs" IS GOING TO TAKE SOME FIXING. Were not going to get it from these two Bendovercrats.

It is not just a matter of changing a few words. It is a matter of returning a few hundred thousand checks from Corporate Parasites.

Nothing will change. Even if Hillary or O bomb em wins the Legislature will be paid to wake up and get on TV after eight years. There are more than one ways to move further right. WHEN WILL WE WAKE UP AND POST ON MAINSTREAM SITES AND BUILD BRIDGES FROM THERE TO HERE?

http://www.naderexplore08.org/

realitychecker (5:33) - Here's what is "going on with Common Dreams." People with an experienced eye are recognizing a very old tune being played once again: the Democrats are moving (actually, have already moved) to insure that the final nominee is securely in the pocket of all the loathesome forces that are destroying this country: the MIC, Wall St, & AIPAC. In a situation where 70% of the population opposes the war, we're going to have a November "choice" of two pro-war candidates. Even if the Democrat wins, the military budget will be unchanged, the occupation will continue, and virtually nothing that Bush has done will be reversed. None of the Democrats is even mentioning Bush, let alone calling for his administration to be held accountable for anything they've done. The Constitution has been blatantly violated, and Bush & Cheney are war criminals by anyone's standards -- yet the Democrats refuse to mention this, as though by not talking about it, it will just go away.

Perceiving the hideous form things are taking, & recognizing the role played by brain-dead Democratic voters in rationalizing any slop that they're offered on grounds that "the Repub would be even worse," is a bit taxing on one's disposition. It makes one testy. That's what's going on with Common Dreams.

Teddie Kennedy was all in favor of Nafta and all the other goodies that enriched the Bush Family and the Clintonites. Obama sounds like a re-thread tire of old. He has yet to raise a legit issue. Let's wait for Ralph Nader.
No candidate deserves our vote or time.
The country has become so corrupt it has become an accepted way of life..

Why is it that every four years, when the Republicans and Democrats trot out their last candidate standing, their Dr. Jekylls who inevitably turn into Mr. Hydes, everyone acts as if Abraham Lincoln is running again for the presidency? It's absurd. This nation, like most of the rest of the planet, is ruled by primitive acquisitiveness and greed. Besides death and taxes, those are about the only sure things in this hopelessly corrupt world.

Do you know how to pummel the establishment? You vote (write in) third party candidates in the elections to pummel the establishment. Fail to pummel the establishment, and you will be ruled without your consent.

I cannot believe I am defending Daniel David but.... I am. What in the world is going on with Common Dreams? I find myself this week longing for the days when the comments section didn't exist. But much like other phenomenon's I can not turn away. It almost makes me laugh and cry when I read the posts here anymore because I can't understand for the life of me why so many people think that we can practice trickle down politics. I mean seriously, expecting the President of the United States to be the most liberal member of the government? Really? You think a true progressive can win a national election when Nancy Pelosi is the best that San Fransisco can offer? (Let's hope Cindy wins- and please contribute to her campaign as I have) All the things that I want have to start at the ground level and work there ways to Washington, not the other way around. The best thing I can say about Obama is that he does inspire me and he makes me feel good about the commonality of us all. Now, that only lasts for about 15 minutes but still if he can get young people engaged and they hold progressive views then we will gain as a whole, as a voice. Normally I would say be more cynical, but let's get real here. Can't we every once in awhile just talk about the world we live in without these forums being dominated by keyboard warriors? Just a thought for the CD community....

We're all assuming there will actually be an election. It's nice to ponder which corporocrat we'd be willing to hold our nose and vote for, but can we bear in mind that there's a very real possibility that we won't get the chance?

I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that Bush's set-up for 'continuance of Constitutional government' in case of a 'crisis' (any which, by his exec order, *he* defines as such) will end up 'postponing' our election charade. Or perhaps King George and the Supremes will simply install a successor.

If anyone has any problems with that, no doubt the Blackwater folks and their tasers will be ready to 'discuss' it, and the corporate media will slime demonstrators as 'a few extremists' and 'old hippies'.

Now *that's* FRAMING, boys and girls.

Cheers,
Peach McD in Durham NC

The formerly "liberal" New York Times shows its true colors. Back a neo-con in liberal clothes, sure, why don't you just give Kristol a column of his own? Oh, I guess that wasn't very funny.

This thread today is rich with attacks, lies and uselessness. But then, what's new with CD readers anyway?

of course, the big thing missing in tonite's "debate" was john edwards. how annoying to watch each of the two candidates sucking on each other. let's not forget wolf blitzer, a real intellectual stimulator as well as crowd pleaser.

perhaps i missed it while i was throwing up, but was there any discussion about oil? oh yes, there were words about iraq. was there a question about their continued support of funding for that debacle?

how about a bit of analytical as well as intellectual stimuli. granted, they were posed in front of the hollywood mentality - thus the question of too much sex and violence coming out of hollywood, what the fuck?? - but can we please have moderators with more than a pea for a brain?

again, we must thank the voters of iowa and new hampshire and nevada for providing us with this evening's entertainment.

and grumpyoldlady, which is worse, a "depressing realist", or a "delusional" woman?

The only "issue" that matters to Clinton and Obama is POWER. Who gets it. Everything else, every other concern, is so far away they couldn't see it with the Hubble Telescope. If you believe that either Clinton or Obama (especially him) is a transformational candidate who offers "hope" and "change", you have been smoking the last of George Wanker Bush's stash of DDT-laced weed. Obama has raised well over $100 million. Do you think he got $1.00 each from over 100 million people? He got it from the same thieves and bastards who give millions to the Republicans. Obama and Clinton mean more war, more death, more staggering debt, more military, more empire. This is apparently what people who call themselves Democrats want. So be it.

It's just priceless that Mr or Ms 'SavetheBOR' (3:38 pm) writes a 15-point post in highflown style, featuring lofty phrases about "defending the Constitution."

And the whole thing is written in support of a candidate who's too gutless to defend the Constitution, or even to call attention to flagrant violations of the Constitution!

This is a method of kidding yourself. Note that SavetheBOR's thinking includes several classic mechanisms for deluding oneself: He starts out with "No candidate is perfect... -- a sure sign that the person speaking is about to engage in self-deluding rationalization.

Then he continues, "I have made a decision to stop nit-picking all the faults and foibles of the most progressive candidates..."
- Again, this is the classic language of the rationalizer. Little itsy-bitsy faults like voting to fund the occupation, refusing to speak directly of Bush's crimes, being cozy with AIPAC, saber-rattling towards Iran & Pakistan, being quiet as a churchmouse on torture, warrantless wiretapping, & pre-emptive war -- all that is flung out of sight, out of mind, & buried beneath minimizing words like "foibles" and "nitpicking."

Why not defend Bush by saying you're "tired of nitpicking about his foibles. After all, no president is perfect"?

sprucewolf makes a point that has always bothered me about the "frames" in which political figures are treated in public discourse: Saddam Hussein being referred to as "Saddam," Hillary Clinton as "Hillary." It's probably a measure of sexism in our political culture that referring to a politicians as "Bill" or "Al