As much as I would like to believe that Obama, or Clinton for that matter, are "progressive," the facts indicate otherwise.

Obama supports the death penalty. How progressive is that?

He mouths platitudes about a full withdrawal from Iraq, but would leave troops there to defend the U.S. "embassy" (i.e, control center to direct the Iraqi puppet colonial gov't). "Obama introduced the non-binding Iraq War De-Escalation Act with a goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. The bill would allow a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for counterterrorism and the training of Iraqi security forces." In other words Obama supports a (albeit modified) continued U.S. imperialist project in Iraq. How progressive is that?

Obama appears to be subprime on the subprime mortgage issue. "Obama's disappointing foreclosure plan stems from the centrist politics of his three chief economic advisers and his campaign's ties to Wall Street institutions opposed to increased financial regulation. David Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman are both Harvard economists who served in the Clinton Administration, and they work on market-oriented solutions to social welfare issues. Cutler advocates improving healthcare through financial incentives; Liebman, the partial privatization of Social Security." So, one might ask just how progressive is Obama?

Now that Kucinich and Edwards have dropped out of the race, I'm considering the Green Party--Cynthia McKinney-- or perhaps Mike Gravel, a dem who is almost never covered by the media, but who is running in the democratic primaries.

This progressive would like a progressive candidate -- and Obama sadly falls short. Kucinich represented my views 100% on this measure of where candidates stand on the issues (http://www.dehp.net/candidate/). Obama came in at 53%

SC

Obama needs better advice and to stop taking money from those with vested interests.

Clinton needs to develop a conscience.

It is not too late for either to do this - if they so wish.

I agree with the first poster regarding what are and what are not progressive values. However, I do think that Obama may be able to energize the grass roots, and if he does, real change may happen, change that is not top-down but from the bottom up.

I thank George Lakoff for excluding the possibility of Hillary becoming President (with that gender-exclusive "him"!)

But on the whole, Lakoff has a few good ideas, but he is also a triangulator. And all of the fellows at the Rockridge Instiute annoy me for various reasons. For instance, in _don't Think of an Elephant", Lakoff calls the other side "conservative" or "conservatives", when that is the furthest thing from the truth. In effect, he violates his own "framing" counsels by even refusing to qualify the term conservative by "so-called or putting the term in scarew quotes. Also, the aforementioned book does not even bother to include an index. What arrogance!

The same can be said of Paul Wadlman and others. Waldman's book _Being Right is not Enough_ has an Index, but it contains only two occurecnes of "conservative" or "conservatives"/"conservatism"! I shan't take the time to go through the book with a fine-toothed comb to see if there are other occurrences of these words, but it annoys me to no end that these guys are presuming to tell liberals, leftists, and progresives how to get their points across and to frame issues. Please!

They'll never succeed in countering the right with this mamby-pamby b.s.

The Democratic Party has long sold out the progressive movement. Who stood up for the candidates who were excluded from the debates? No one.

Calling Obama a progressive choice is surely going to back fire again. And third party candidates were never a reason that the Democratic Party 'lost' the last two presidential selections. And the selection process is again continuing.

The conservative corporate arm will be happy with Obama, Hillary, McCain or whatever 'candidate' is running because there are all bought, lock, stock and barrel.

Don't let the economy slow down, war is good business.

The sad truth is that the progressive voice is again going to allow a candidate to represent them who doesn't represent their positions regarding war, death penalty, corportate economics.

The football will again be snathed away and all you Charlie Browns will act surprised, again.

so it goes...

Naomi Klein gave a great speech on "framing". It wasn't invented by Reagan. He was just an actor who was skilled at projecting, like an actor should be.

If you look at old ads (from early in the 20th century), they are very wordy. They were still in the Enlightment Jeffersonian tradition of appealing to reason to persuade.

During WWl, the public relations industry was born. They had to sell a war to a public who could see clearly that there was no reason to participate. They succeeded. After the war, they turned to selling products.

Now, we never have appeals to reason. Nike just shows a checkmark.

Lakoff celebrates Obama's lack of appeal to reason. Just like Reagan, he appeals to emotion and people can read whatever they like into his feelings.

Thomas Jefferson would be disappointed in us.

Lakoff distorted the NYT EdOp. Never once did the Editorial state leadership, vision, unity
are non-issues. Lakoff cannot logically draw this conclusion.

George Lakoff is brilliant and his ideas need to be read, understood, and practiced by all progressives.

Democratic candidates from local to federal should be using his ideas to get the progressive worldview framed and activated in the American public.

Lakoff blurs the distinction between personal qualities, broad ideas, and issues.

Leadership, whatever that may mean to a given audience, is certainly not an issue. It is a personal quality.

Hope, unity, optimism, and other similar things are broad ideas but not issues.

War is an issue. Unemployment is an issue. Economic globalization is a set of issues. Torture is an issue. Electoral fraud is an issue.

It's not hard to understand.

Obama's first vote as a senator was to confirm Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State. 'Nuff said.

It is not just a matter of what the politicians are saying, but also an issue about what the monopoly media is covering. We can't expect the American people to make decisions based on policies when the media rarely covers policies in favor of covering personalities and the political horse race.

What is all this nonsense about "values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity." What should be glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain is that the corporatocracy has once again installed the candidates of its choice. Neither Obama nor Clinton can possibly win and that's why they're there. Come November, Mad Dog McCain is going to be installed in office to carry on with the fascist agenda.

Forget the values. They mean little at this point.

There is, however, on issue that is important to me. Hillary is a woman. So am I. I am now 71 years old. I started out poor. I worked very hard to get an education and then found that I was consistently paid less and denied promotions. Too many times I have heard the phrase "Normally we hire a man for this job."

Even now, women make only 73 cents for every dollar a man makes. Moreover, there seems to be an effort to further degrade the status of women.

I don't like Hillary but I do think that we are safer with her in office. Much safer than we would be with a Republican.

What qualifies as an issue in this election? Any old damnable personal detail you're dumb enough to let the press lull you to sleep with. We're down to four. McCain follows the MIC. Mitt follows money and the (infallilbe) Mormon Church leadership. Hillary follows Bill. Barack is the only one left standing as even a possible "leader." And, at least he knows how Reagan propelled himself forward, but unfortunately had to endure the mention of that knowledge becoming another of those damnable details.

We should never forget that whichever one of these four make into into office, they are going to murder thousands or even millions of people, and squander hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars making the world a more dangerous place, but some will murder more and squander more than others. We as US citizens have a responsibility to minimize the damage to be done to the rest of the human race and to choose the least evil of the group (I know that some will roll their eyes, and fill themselves with anger, but we are evil ourselves if we ignore any noticeable differences). It is not pretty, but a great many lives, and possibly even the future of the entire human race, depend on it.

Lakoff is kind of a self-promoting spinmeister. Naming or re-naming things ("framing"), is important as far as it goes, but mostly Lakoff is counting the hairs on a gnat's backside. It's basically a boiled-down, "modernized" lecture or two from the old lower division university classes in Rhetoric. Rhetoric, some of you may remember, was the once-honorable art of persuasion and argumentation. Yes, it helps to have rhetorical skills and in his shallow, disposable sort of way, Obama has them (although if he mentions "an awesome God" one more time I may toss cookies). Seems to me however, that a guy as knowlegeable as Lakoff really ought to be able to distinguish between positions on the issues and the arguments used to discuss the issues. This is especially true now in the USA, where political discourse has devolved into nothing more than a thin broth, flavored entirely with artifical ingredients.

In summary - if you ain't got nuthin to say, I really don't care how you say it!

(you may substitute "frame" for "say" in the above comment...)

I was going to add something, but I can't do any better than RichM just did. He's absolutely right. So is jareilly.

While trying to reading this piece, I couldn't stop myself from wondering why word-master Lakoff chose the usage first-name Hillary and last-name Obama, instead of Hillary and Barack or Clinton and Obama? Further, I noticed that Barack has his own ideas while Hillary only has policy wonks. It's very hard for a reader to focus on the points when such insulting, sexist-appearing tactics are used. If the argument can hold water, there's no need for that kind of slant.

Reagan was an authentic what exactly? Airhead? It isn't about authenticity or trust, it's about people drugged out on "America." Push the buttons and they will follow. Some of us can't be worked on that way, and we probably won't be voting for either of these self-important stiffs.

Go Gravel.

I'd prefer to keep noticing how our choices have been whittled down to almost nothing rather than cover it over with last-ditch attempts to unify our voice on behalf of candidates that have sold and will continue to sell-- themselves and us along with them--out. We're probably going to end up with a Vichy govt. I'm not going to call it "deeply progressive"!

It is time to take a stand and DO something. No candidate is perfect. I have made a decision to stop nit-picking all the faults and foibles of the most progressive candidates and put my time and money on the line. It would be interesting to publicize the faults and embarrassing information about each of us who so blithely post here and see who would support us (wry smile to you).

I wanted to be inspired again. Barack Obama inspires me with his messages. How much will he able to accomplish? If he can do even 25% of what he is talking about, that will be progress. The most resonant part of his message, for me, is that WE together have to make change; he is not saying the HE is the messiah, he is saying that if we citizens commit to make change, it will happen.

I am committing my time and money for the Obama for America campaign prior to Super Tuesday. I have opened my business office for volunteers to make calls, and get out the vote on Monday.

Aside from supporting Obama, I have formed a group called AWAKENED CITIZENS. Following is what we sent to every member of Congress; you may say it is corny or naïve, but we intend to keep the messages going to our elected representatives. BTW, you are welcome to copy and send to your representatives:

NEW YEAR RESOLUTIONS
2008

I resolve to rededicate myself, as a Member of Congress, to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and to the American people.

1. I will vote as a humble servant of the American people.
2. Before any vote, I will take time to close my eyes and visualize the faces of those whom my vote may affect, the elderly grandmother in a nursing home, the young couple just starting out in life with a baby on the way, the 50'ish tradesman, the severely wounded veteran returning from the Middle East, the bright-eyed five-year old ready to start kindergarten,
3. I will vote as though I don't have to worry about getting re-elected.
4. I will vote as one who is free of obligations to special interests that don't coincide with what I truly believe is in the public interest.
5. I will vote as though there are no cameras, I don't have to "posture" for sound bites, I can be myself and say what is true.
6. I will vote as though there are no consequences from the administration, other members of congress, or my financial contributors.
7. I will conduct independent research on issues, seeking out experts who have no political agendas, I will avoid sources known to "spin" facts, withhold information, or provide false information. I will make decisions based on fact and logic rather than dogma and political expediency.
8. I will demonstrate that I have the courage to say, "I was wrong" and "I changed my mind."
9. I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make decisions in the best interest of the American people; I will abandon petty partisan politics.
10. I will avoid name-calling and character assaults; I will challenge the issue, not the person.
11. While others use inflammatory language to manipulate the American people, creating fear, appealing to racism, classism, religiosity, sexism, and prejudice; I will be the voice of reason.
12. I will be the one to extend a hand to find common ground to solve our problems now and to leave a positive legacy for future generations.
13. I will vote as though this the last day of my life; my last chance to leave a legacy for my country, my family, and the world.
14. I will re-read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; I will require that my staff do so as well.
15. I will publicly recommit to my oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States
Signed_________________________________

I told you so. We will have a Republican government in November. After all, there is no opposition.

What counts is the war. Obama opposed it before it started, Mrs. Thatcher-Clinton voted to permit it, and McCain wants to prolong it.

Lakoff and his Rockridge Institute are pro-slavery, pro-sweatshop, corporate whores. They are wolves in sheep's clothing, cynically spewing their rhetorical webs and smirking at the peons who lap it up.

You can be sure of one thing in this crazy political season: whatever Lakoff and Rockridge are for, genuine progressives should be against.

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" of "Jimmy" is a sign of affection while doing the same for a woman politician is the kind of diminuation practiced against blacks when whites call them by their first names. I fully agree with most of the posters here that George Lakoff has it very, very wrong in calling for Democrats to embrace "values" or "identity" politics in lieu of a focus on "issues." But, for God's sake, G.L. and almost everybody else, if you're going to focus on frames, at least get your frames "straight" when you use names for people.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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....

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.

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.

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..

http://www.naderexplore08.org/

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?

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.

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".

maggie50

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

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!

"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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

Obama leading in the home stretch ..

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

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.