If this party nominates Hillary, I will vote for McCain. For a party that wants to unite a country, I fail to understand why it would nominate a person that half the country either hates or does not trust. And 4 more years of political disarray is what you'll get.
Obama is much more likely to draw moderates and unite and has my vote. The only thing keeping Hillary afloat is Super delegates which shows the same ole corrupt power machine at work. Is anyone else upset that your vote is only worth 1 in millions, but Bill's as a 'Super delegate' counts as 1 in about 4000. So much for Democracy.

I bet if they choice is between Hillary or Obama and McCain, the next president WILL be McCain, he is everything that Hillary and Obama are not. And with the help of the Diebold & Co. the words of Carl Rove will be true, the next president of the US will be a republican, probably with Lieberman as running mate.

"He talks of hope, of change, of bringing the country together" - as he knocks off Kucinich, Edwards, Gravel, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and attacks both Clintons. And as he appoints many of the usual suspects to his shadow cabinet (Breszinski of clandestine wars, et al) How's that for togetherness, how's that for change.

Bush said the same things, that he will be the uniter not the divider, that could work with both parties. Just typical Politician Troll Pap. Obama is one smooth operator. But he has to decide. Is he the candidate of change or of togetherness. Can't be both! He is already being attacked by the financial press as a potential tax-raiser.

Or is he just another Lieberman clone, his mentor who also talked of all those things but was the agent of none of them.

"He can and does run against the Iraq war and the war of Washington politics as usual. He seems to live the politics of inclusion." The war of Washington politics? I just see the class war waged there by the Republicans and the MSM, and the meekness and timidity of the Democrats. WE DON'T NEED MORE LIEBERMAN-STYLE KUMBAYA that assures the liberals always get their asses kicked in by the Republicans (like the recent subpoenas issued by Congress that are flat-out ignored and laughed at by the Bushites). We need a REAL FIGHT in Congress, not the endless 'inclusive' dither of the Democratic wimps, blue dog(turds), and surrender monkeys we have now. So what is Obama talking about? His own ambition. Go along to personally get along.

Politics of inclusion? He will sorely test the Nixonian-Reaganite Southern Strategy that drove whites into the Republican party. As Johnson said when he signed the Civil Rights Act, "the Democrats have lost the South for generations." Why at least couldn't Obama be named Jim Brown and be from a more traditional background? Many Republicans hate McCain because he won't criminalize illegal immigrants and build a wall. Sure, they will all for for a black dude named Barak.

"Most importantly for Democrats, he can win. He has inspired new generations in a campaign that will pit him against a 71-year-old war hero. He has consistently won the independent vote --over his DEMOCRATIC rivals--! and would compete well against a Republican opponent whose strength is with independents. Unlike Clinton, he will not mobilize the somewhat demoralized Republican right-wing base against him." Are you kidding? This is a wild optimistic guess by a partisan. I would like to think this is so, as Obama is far better than any Republican, but I fear that Rove has some very dirty tricks lined up for Hussein O(s)ama. Rove did it to MCCAIN! for pete's sake! What a far easier target Obama is. And don't say it will backfire. Rove is not going for persuading liberals or progressives, but to energize the Republican and Right-Wing 'base'.

The liberal vote if Obama is nominated would be secure. But the liberal vote did not carry Kerry into the White House, and Kerry was an actual war hero going up against chickenhawks. Incredibly, that still wasn't enough! But I can't imagine the red states will be any bluer in November with Obama, probably the reverse. Clinton may deliver the women in those states though, and is the more comfortable candidate. If you had to bet on the politics of personal identification in the private voting booth, then women would be the clear winner.

Either Dem candidate has weaknesses that are troubling, and are certainly not the most progresive choices. At this juncture, to beat the Republicans at all costs, maybe it's better to go with the proven streetfighters, the Clintons, than the flavor of the month. Either way though, let's hope there is a Dem in the White House come 2009, rather than the dim war-horse McCain or the hedge-fund charlatan Romney. Because, shockingly, heartbreakingly, that is all the 'choice' America has got now.

While there are those who think McCain can win they are not taking into consideration those conservatives that would never vote for McCain. In fact, there are many who say that they will vote for the Democratic nominee just to insure that McCain loses. I know that I am one of those voters.

Why should I vote for McCain when I consider him to almost mirror Clinton's political positions? I'm not certain that Clinton will even get the nomination. While I do not agree with many of Obama's viewpoints at least I believe him to be honest. He is no JFK, that's for sure but he is who he says he is. McCain tried to paint himself as someone he is not.

If it comes to Clinton vs McCain I may not vote. If it comes to Obama vs McCain, I vote Obama.

purvis ames wrote:

"Resume of a hero"? McCain is a certifiable war criminal who enthusiastically dropped cluster bombs and napalm on the Vietnamese people. To call this piece of human filth a hero is like awarding an S.S. concentration camp commandant a medal.

Absolutely right on, Purvis, except for one thing: The CFP (Corporate Fascist Press, sometimes known as MSM) will do everything to keep this this information from getting out. All the way from the "liberal" N. Y. Times to the nazi Washington Times, from the "liberal" CNN to the nazi Fox News, they'll ALL be pushing the "war hero" bullshit. And most of the brain dead American public will believe it.

Maybe the Dems will pathetically try to propagate their own truthful information about McCain but you can be sure the media will ignore it.

dahliagirl - "Why not three weeks ago when they still had a chance to elect the only Dem candidate that could beat McCain and Romney - Edwards."

This is not the case. All the polls save one showed Edwards loosing. The polls are no longer online as Edwards is not running, but your statement is not correct althoug often repeated.

In reference to the smear machine that is sure to go into high gear if Obama is the candidate, his "ties" to Islam will surely be an issue. I have a friend who is a real rightwinger. (He's a nice person as long as I can forget that he needs a proctologist to find his head when it comes to politics and religion, so we mostly agree to disagree and not talk about those subjects when we play poker together.)

Anyhow, this guy is a pretty good barometer as to what's going on in rightwing lala land. A couple of weeks ago, he sat down at the poker table and said, in a voice filled with incredulous horror, "Do you know what Obama's middle name is?"

Of course, I did know and was surprised it was such a revelation to him, so it must have been a Big New Topic in the nutjob blogosphere. (He was also the first person to tell me that "the only entities to offer their lives for the good of humanity were Jesus Christ and the American soldier." That one had me rolling on the floor LMAO, but I came to find out that it was part of a Christian email campaign.)

So, I responded by saying, "Yep. I know." in a voice that I hoped ended that conversation. Later when I thought about it, I wished I'd said, "Yeah. And what's really amazing is that once I had a kitten named George. I guess that makes me a closet Republican."

Very recently, I read on a liberal blog that the mantra will be Barack HUSSEIN Obama Barack HUSSEIN Obama Barack HUSSEIN Obama Barack HUSSEIN Obama Barack HUSSEIN Obama Barack HUSSEIN ObamaBarack HUSSEIN Obama Barack HUSSEIN Obama Barack HUSSEIN Obama Barack HUSSEIN Obama from the moment (if) he gets the nomination to the end of election day.

Could anything be uglier than this?

I keep hearing and reading about all the 40 and 50+ women who support Hillary Clinton. I'm 60, and I definitely do not want her as the Democratic candidate. Although I don't really have much faith in Obama either, I certainly prefer him.

I didn't like Bill Clinton's presidency due to the implementation of NAFTA, the increasing divide between the wealthy and everyone else that resulted from continued deregulation, and his gutting of the welfare system. It always seemed to me that Clinton was simply Republican-lite.

McCain is scary with his million years in Iraq scenario, and what's even more scary is the thought of whom he would pick for vice-president. If it's someone like Huckabee, it would be a disaster, and it kind of goes downhill from there - unless, of course, there's someone on the Republican side who is less odious that we haven't heard about.

The "more tax cuts" mantra from all the Republican is just sickening. Ron Paul is just like the others on this issue. He's right on the war, and he's right on civil liberties more or less, but his libertarian "everyone for themselves" rather than "we are all in this together" stance really puts me off. Also, I read his site, and there was a lot there that I don't like at all.

It's not a big secret why Edwards and Kucinich had to drop out of the race. Both are threats to corporation, and they were marginalized by the media from the beginning. Clinton seems to be favored by the media, which makes her much less acceptable to me.

Mark Twain once said, "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself."

I guess things don't really change very much.

Support Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) wherever and whenever you can. It seems to be the only thing that will crack the system. We have to be able to use it.

They already have. Nothing new about that. The Democrats have no candidates worth a vote, no significant platform, and no idea how to win an election. We're stuck with Bush and the Repugs for the rest of the century and beyond. Obviously, no one gives a damn.

Uh, prof (3:54 am), one does not take one's country back by continuing the damage at an arguably different rate. That isn't defeatism; that's reason.

I cannot share your enthusiasm for candidates who speak INTELLIGENTLY (sic) about the war they support and vote to fund.

Also, some of the recycled critiques with no basis in fact, such as the one about discussants doing nothing else because they comment here, are just ridiculous.

Please recheck the definition of "platitude," and then recheck how dazzled you are by the candidates' rhetoric.

Deran you (as others) say "[Obama] has the same policies as Clinton". Here is one difference and it is HUGE: social security.

Both Obama and Clinton say they want to keep social security intact and oppose the Republican idea of switching to private stock market retirement accounts. BUT that is where the agreement ends. Obama is talking--centrally and repeatedly--of elminating the income ceiling cap on the social security or payroll tax, with a possible "doughnut hole" exemption preserved in the c. 100,000-200,000 salary range. But Obama wants to see all income levels pay the payroll tax, not simply the onerous "tax the poor" highly regressive nature of this tax as it now stands. At the same time, according to Obama's campaign website, Obama advocates returning the first $500 of payroll tax paid to the lowest-end earners of the workforce (in the form of a tax credit).

The regressive payroll tax is one of the most obvious and severe burdens targeting, like a neutron bomb, above all the working poor; however the social security defined-benefit system is so effective and under Republican attack that the blatantly regressive nature of the tax to pay for it has been accepted. Obama's agenda on the payroll tax would preserve the social security system against any attack on it on fiscal grounds, and at no ADDITIONAL cost to the working poor.

But now look at Clinton's reaction to Obama's serious and central campaign on this matter: Clinton ATTACKS Obama for this. She calls it a "trillion dollar tax increase" "on the middle class" (Clinton defines middle class as above 100,000, or if the "doughnut hole" is implemented, above 200K per year). Clinton's repeated attacks on Obama on THIS issue means Clinton can hardly turn around, if she were elected, and then implement raising the cap on income herself--or it will be far more difficult to do so. She could do so only by having helped get elected by attacking Obama on the very point she would then be implementing.

BUT Clinton says she will keep social security intact (against the Bush-Republican agenda to gut social security). Yet she has--repeatedly, and consistently, just as consistently as Obama is the opposite here--ruled out raising the income ceiling on paying the payroll tax. Yet she centrally advocates "fiscal responsibility" by which she appears to mean balanced budgets and pay-as-you-go. HOW will she accomplish this, RULING OUT raising the income ceiling on the payroll tax, yet keeping social security?

Clinton's STATED answer is: she will not say, except to say she will form a bipartisan commission (both Republicans and Democrats), then let them decide what to do (so everyone can share in being blamed). Then she will implement it. Remember, she says she is not going to abolish social security, and she is opposed--personally and politically and as president--to extending the payroll tax to anyone above the existing level of around 100,000 cap. She not only is opposed to any wealthy person paying the payroll tax, but ATTACKS Obama on this point.

Although Clinton refuses to say where she is going with this, let me spell it out: she is setting up CUTS IN BENEFITS (and/or INCREASING the payroll tax on the poorest earners of society). However this is massaged and explained, this is what social security is headed for if Clinton has her way. She will not SAY this--she SAYS she will let a bipartisan commission figure out what to do (let THEM say "cut benefits", "delay benefits", stick it to the poor a bit more)--provided only--if Clinton has her way--that any notion of raising the 100,000 ceiling on payment is RULED OUT.

Yet neither Obama, nor Edwards earlier, nor any journalist questioning Clinton, has ever been able to get Clinton to SAY this--because she simply repeats as a mantra: "fiscal responsibility" and "bipartisan commission". When she excludes raising the income ceiling, this is code for sticking it to the working poor worse and/or cutting benefits.

There is much else that is similar between Obama and Clinton, but this difference is real. This is not buried deep in some obscure campaign promise on either side that might be forgotten. This is major. It reflects a difference in vision for America and America's working poor: with Obama, ending the regressivity of the payroll tax. With Clinton, keep the regressivity of the payroll tax. This is about as stark as it gets.

It is in the economic interest of no one earning over 200,000 to support Obama's vision for social security/the payroll tax. However, there are many earning above 200,000 who will vote for Obama, against their economic interests on this point, for a variety of reasons one of which for some is the simple sense of justice on this point.

Clinton plays to her corporate wealthy backers on this issue, using the language of "opposing middle class tax increases" by which she means 200,000-plus earners (Clinton has opposed the "doughnut hole" idea). Obama is proposing real structural change here, going to the heart of the neutron bomb tax effect on the poor of the payroll tax. If Obama is successful it would eliminate once and for all the "pretext" of social security's fiscal problems which is what the Republicans want to use to gut the program. With Clinton--if she has her way, and she has been very clear on this--the social security program will be fiscally viable only with pain and piecemeal changes, always subject to Republican-inflamed attacks that it should be gutted or ended because of the fiscal problems. This is a clear and compelling difference in vision and agenda between Obama and Clinton.

Sweet merciless Mary, every tinhorn academic in the country is sounding off on the election. This fellow is so poorly informed as to be sad.

No rightwing third party on the horizon? What rock have you been living under?

Do a blog search abt Alan Keyes looking into fetting teh Constitution Party's nod. And look at the way much of the neocon right in the GOP has made it clear they would rather vote for Clinton than McCain. Tom Tancredo has also been putting out feelers abt the Consitution Party nomination because of McCains pro immigrant policies.

And then of course you may or may not have heard of Ron Paul. Paul has been maintaining his numbers and money rosing and his people are all ready to move on Nov as an indie or Libertarian.

And beyong all the sheer vapidity of the piece, the fellow does have it right in one area. Obama is his narrative. That is what he is running for president on. He has the same policies as Clinton, the same pool of advisors. Obama is the reality tv candidate.

I don't see anything in the Clinton campaign that particularly addresses any women's issues so it's odd she is said to have so much gender support. However it may be, I am a woman 69 and definitely not voting for her.

Clinto keeps copying the Obama campaign so I'd rather have the original where the smarts are!

I'm getting tired of the defeatism here. "We're not ready for a black president." "We're not ready for a female president." "I hate Clinton." "I hate Obama." "The Democrats are wimps." "The only candidate that could beat McCain is Edwards." "Clinton is a lying neo-con." Etc., etc. What is this? Do you people work for the Republican party? Is this another demonic Rovian scheme to demoralize progressives so that they don't bother to vote next November?

You might call me naive but I believe that either Clinton or Obama would be a million times better than Romney or McCain. I heard Clinton and Obama at the last Democratic debate and I almost wept for joy to hear two candidates debating and speaking INTELLIGENTLY about the war, about illegal immigrants, about universal health care, about the future. Yeah, I would have prefered to have Edwards be the democratic nomineee, or Kucinich. But both Obama and Clinton were talking eloquently about a government of possibilities, of transparency, of hope, and of the people. Whatever one might say about them, these are two intelligent and committed candidates with proven (perhaps flawed) track records of public service.

To be sure, I'm pissed at the Dems in Congress and in the Senate for being timid, with their go-along to get along attitudes, I'm annoyed with them for taking impeachment off the table, for continuing to fund this insane war, for not standing up for our Constitution. Yeah, I'm pissed--but I'll be damned if I let the corporate neo-cons turn my country into a fascist state! Tell your Democratic congressman or congresswoman you want change, that you want our Constitution back! If they refuse to change or be accountable, vote them out of office. If you feel that there will be voting tampering in the November elections, get involved and demand a ban on paperless voting. Go here:

http://pol.moveon.org/paperlessvoting/

Get out and do something instead of giving up. Be a part of the solution. If we just sit in front of our computers and whine to one another on these forums, we're doing the work of the corporate neo-cons and the slide to fascism will continue. It's our government, let's take it back.

Was Monica a democrat?

Now that Ron Paul is probably not going to make it--the country has decided (no surprise) to spend itself itself into a catastrophic bankruptcy--the only issue that really matters for me is why of the 3 senators running (Clinton, McCain, Obama) why didn't they show their great leadership and end torture? (Lesser issues: restore habeas corpus, end spying on Americans, etc.). If they can't even accomplish that, why do any deserve to be President?

What kelmer said; the Repubs have already won... The Democratic leadership are a bunch of fuckin' idiots.

With the way the baby boomers responded to Gravel and Kucinich how can they disappoint? They choose someone they think can win instead of someone they think can do the right thing. That's how they ended up with Kerry and lost. If this country can vote in a Republican president again, what difference does it make? I would have thought a gopher would have beat any Republican after the last 7 years. Doesn't it show the population is hopeless?

Everyone who is going to wake up has already awakened, saw their Presidential candidates, and burrowed back down for another four years.

"Barring the entrance of a third-wheel, right-wing Republican jalopy into the race — and none has been advertised........."

The super fascist Bloomberg is not advertising yet, but he is the man the neocons hope to come galloping to the rescue.

Let's face it-we really do not elect our President; the Electoral College does. And actually, it states that whoever wins the E.C. is Prez, and the second place finisher is Veep. Somehow, over the years, political parties corrupted this by having "running mates". So, it doesn't function as the founders intended. Until we abolish this relic, we are stuck with a state-by-state, winner take all system in each state.

You would think that the debacle in 2000, with Gore winning the popular vote, and Dumbyah stealing the White House with the aid of the Supremes, would have made the public demand amending the Constitution-one person, one vote, period.

So, we have primaries set up and conducted by the two parties, flip sides of the same bad coin.(The Constitution also does not mention anything of political parties.) They effectively disenfranchise the majority of voters. This leads us to our "choices" now...Hillary or Barack.

The dumbest thing the Dems can do will be to nominate Hillary. Like it or not, she carries enough negative baggage that a majority of the country will not vote for her. As mentioned previously, remember the Electoral College still rules, and this is state by state. She will not win enough electoral votes, even if she did somehow manage to win the popular vote. Gore redux.

I'm in Texas, and our primary isn't until March 4. What do we do? Vote for someone who is on the ballot, but dropped out?(BTW, Kucinich won't even BE on the ballot, as he refused to agree to support whoever the eventual Dem nominee will be.) Unless Super Tuesday is a big split, then we will only have one choice by then.

I liked Kucinich, but he was marginalized by the system. So was Gravel. Richardson dropped out. And Dodd. Edwards threw in the towel. Guess you have two choices now, Dems. Like Dr. Phil says, "How's that workin' for ya?"

If you vote the lesser of two weevils you still end up with a boring insect.

RichM - I hope you don't think I'm kissing your Ass - but you always come through with your brilliant analysis.

"Can the Democrats Blow It Again?"

You betcha!

"Enter Barack Husein Obama, the man with a Kansan mother, an Muslim father, and a privileged childhood"

If anyone thinks this simple statement will not motivate the republican Christian base they are fooling themselves.

It makes no never mind to me, I will vote for the green party, 'cause I see no real change in any of the choices. But for those on you who really want a Democrat in the white house. Hillary Clinton is you last and best hope.

Want Change? Denounce the Corporate Dems. Lesser of twoevilism has produced a toothless hack that is paid to not fight back

Without Thirty Years of Lesser of Twoevilism Bush itself Would have been impossible.

"Sorry Tom, I'll never own a gun."

Too bad Tiberious. Civilization is a very thin veneer.

The difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives always for the overdog. Liberals always for the underdog.

Go Giants!

Hillary WILL make changes, some very good ones. The Republicans will NOT win, just look at the difference in voter turnout so far, it's almost two to one in the Democrats favor. Either Hillary or Obama will beat the Republican, probably McCain. __ Polls?__ The polls showed McCain was a dead duck a month ago. The important polls will be those of next September and October.

Whoever is in the White House will not be able to prevent the depression. So you're correct to stock up, a two year supply will be necessary. And if you run out of T-paper, use a sponge. That's what the Roman solders used, it works fine, they're washable, just fasten it to a piece of broom handle, soaked corn cobs are very good too, use a red one and then a white one, to see if you need another red one. They make excellent garden fretilizer.

Where to begin?

(1) This is based on Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina--exactly FOUR primaries--not counting Michigan, which Hillary Clinton won unopposed, and Florida, which Hillary Clinton won massively.

(2) This says it all: http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2008/01/the-sexist-medi.html

I told the Obama campaigner who came to my door yesterday that I hope he wins and that he is lying through his teeth just like the last guy who said he's a uniter, not a divider. That he sees a place for the corporate health insurance companies at the table, blah blah blah and that it's all lies. That he will get elected, give them the finger and say SUCKERS, and let his MLK, civil rights, grassroots organizing roots come shining on through...I'm surely just dreaming. More likely his wall street banker bundling strings will be calling the shots.

I will vote Kucinich in the primary. If I let my party try to limit my choices, then my voice will have been silenced, and they ain't shuttin' me up! As for the general, whether it's Clinton or Obama, you know we're waking up the next day to our new President McCain 49-51%. And we'll all say, what did we Democrats do wrong??? Wake up folks, doesn't matter who you vote for -- we're not the ones deciding.

We are most likely in for some terrible shocks ahead, and will be made even worse if we don't wake up. The majority of Americans seem to be caught in a kind of 'programming loop,' and time is running out for them to hit the "Ctrl C" on their keyboards.

sprinkles (3:09 pm) offers the oft-made argument that "There is one thing we all must remember. The aging liberal wing of the Supreme Court. More Republican appointees we do NOT need..."

- Yes, but the lesson there is NOT that we should vote for whatever slop the Dem Party offers. Rather, we should remember the betrayals of the Democrats, who rolled over & allowed all the Supreme Court rightwingers to be confirmed without even putting up a fight.

The dismal record of Democrats in opposing these terrible SCOTUS "justices" is precisely what needs to be remembered. It underscores that there's nothing to be gained by supporting spineless weasels, simply because they've got a 'D' on their jerseys.

sprinkles February 3rd, 2008 3:09 pm

"There is one thing we all must remember. The aging liberal wing of the Supreme Court. More Republican appointees we do NOT need."

Good point sprinkles.....and one which we all need to take into consideration when we cast our votes on Tuesday.

A sensible counterweight to the corporations, bankers, big energy, nuclear/oil, MIC, etc. isn't going to happen through the candidates they select for us, or the system they keep rigged against democracy.

There is one thing we all must remember. The aging liberal wing of the Supreme Court. More Republican appointees we do NOT need.

Can they blow it? They've ALREADY blown it. And now we're left with Clinton and Obama - the two weakest, most vulnerable candidates. Clinton - The Republicans' dream opponent. Obama - Their second choice. The election is over. The good guys lost.

The Dimwit party is dead. Long live the Dimwits.

The only candidate that could have beaten McCain was John Edwards.

I say forget the Dims and Repugs! Vote independent, write in your candidate of choice, or go Green. This is your last chance folks. Make your vote count!

Given the continual lowering in the quality of candidates as evidenced by the "electable choices" and the prescripted vacuous Hollywoodization of the process I predict a record low voter turnout.

Sorry Tom, I'll never own a gun.

I continue to stock emergency supplies.

Same here Tiberious. The three things you don't want to run out of are rounds, water, and shit paper. Shit paper's a luxury, but it's a nice one.

Don't make the mistake most people do. Too many guns, not enough ammo.

This article sounds like pure propaganda to me. After the election is stolen for a third time, the headlines will read, "America Just Wasn't Ready for a Woman President." or "America Just Wasn't Ready for a Black Man as President." The polls are being used to plant impressions in the psyche of American voters that it is a close race and that we might still have a Republican as President, providing cover for "fixing" the election" and "fixing" expectations.
Cindy Sheehan had it right with her article a while back entitled, "The Fix Is In." She makes the point (if memory serves correctly) about the complete and total corruption of the system itself, and to even be "electable" means to have already sold out to the corporate/military masters.
She also predicted more "slight of hand" rather than an overt takeover such as Marshall Law via another exploitive "terrorist" attack, staged or otherwise.
Another recent CD article talked about the "Stepford Wives Effect" noticing how once in office, seemingly good-hearted people or well-intentioned politicians are suddenly turned into fascist militants. My guess is that enough death threats to one's self and probably loved ones is enough to make anyone re-evaluate a political posture. Anthrax in your mail or sudden plane crashes in your future make standing up against the establishment alone virtually impossible.
I personally don't trust anything I hear on the MSM and have no illusions that the next President will do anything but perpetuate the murderous policies of the current one.
I will vote regardless, focusing mostly on local issues. I continue to stock emergency supplies.

The title should read "The Democrats *have* blown it again".
The Dems have shot themselves in the foot. Suddenly everybody is focusing on the General Election. Duh. Why now? Why not three weeks ago when they still had a chance to elect the only Dem candidate that could beat McCain and Romney - Edwards. And now it's too late folks. America is not ready for a black president. And too many people either can't stomach the Clintons and/or are not ready for a woman president. Both of these candidates are polarizing and will mobilize the opposition, even if they aren't particularly excited about their Republican candidate. Those of us that are liberals just can't seem to get smart about this. We seem to be in some kind of la-la land. Two years ago the media started the Hillary-Barack mantra (remember?) and we fell for it, hook, line and sinker. We get what we deserve for being so short-sighted. It is truly depressing.

This argument is horsesh*t -- a pure "horse race" view of politics.

The problem with Hillary isn't that she won't win (though it's certainly quite possible that she won't). It's that she stinks. She's a lying neocon with a character no better suited to high office than G.W. Bush's, & with a policy orientation that's also little different from Bush's.

For anyone who's not paying attention (like Daniel David), the problem today is not lack of "Democrats." It's the 100% control of political power that's held by corporatist/militarist/imperialists. You don't fix that by putting another C/M/I in office.

It also doesn't help to have ruthless known liars in office. We don't know Obama well enough to be certain whether he's a ruthless liar or not, but with Hillary, there's no doubt. And the thought that her sleazebag unprincipled husband would be co-president again makes me physically ill, just to imagine it.

As for the author's claim that Obama can win, this is also unclear. He appears to be less of a louse than Hillary in terms of his character, but is scarcely different in terms of policy. It's easy to imagine McCain & the Big Rightwing Media Machine clobbering either one of these two deeply objectionable Democrats.

On the other hand, the rightwing could achieve a remarkably deep strategic success by allowing Hillary to become president. First of all, she's a neocon herself, so for most practical purposes, it would be just like having an official Republican in office. Secondly, we all see that the ship of the United States & the global economy is going down, sometime in these next few years. If Hillary is at the helm when it happens, Republicans would be able to blame the collapse on Democrats, for the next few generations.

'According to a recent telephone survey of superdelegates by The New York Times and CBS News, about one-third have expressed no preference in the 2008 race, about 25 percent support Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and about 10 percent favor Senator Barack Obama.'

In total, there are 4,049 Democratic delegates; to win the nomination, a candidate must secure 2,025 of them.

There are 796 superdelegates. (Bill Clinton is one of them).

If the Democrats run Clinton they will probably lose the election but it may not matter who they run because the Repubs stole the last 2 elections and will try to steal 2008.

The only way we will change any policy in this country is to have a major depression. This should happen after we bomb Iran. Also Bush may not leave office if we are involved in WWW3.

I hope they do.

Allow me to explain. If the dems win, the repub slander-machine will spin all the current and subsequent ills (recession, etc) upon the newly elected dems. No matter who wins, the dems will be seen as the great satan.

Should the repubs win, it will fully demonstrate that a US in the hands of the repubs is an evil never to be repeated. It may even motivate the US people to completely overhaul the corrupt voting system to ensure that there is never again 2-party dominance.

I can dream, can't I?

Mrs. BJ Clinton has the most corporate money and is the favorite candidate of Israel (now that Guiliani is gone), according to Ha'aretz.

Let's do the Democratic Party dance -

Take a step to the right, take a step to the right,
Hold hands with your Republican partner (let them lead)
Take a step to the right.

They probably will.

I dont think Billary can win because she is disliked by a lot of people--and unlike 2004, where progressive leaning people werent willing to come out and vote against the man they hated, you can be sure that the other side will be willing to come out and vote against a woman they hate.

Trouble is, Barack Hussein Obama might end up being smeared as a foreigner with arab-muslim ties more effectively than the race issue.

And whether its Clinton or Obama, all it takes is a little incident militarily around October, by Bush(I wondered why McCain was so tolerant of Bush) and it will swing for McCain(if it was Clinton vs Romney it may benefit her).

Sadly--that's probably how its going to be.

Voting for an Obama would be a radical shift away frm the Bush legacy in some sense, but, I dont have faith in the electorate.

"Resume of a hero"? McCain is a certifiable war criminal who enthusiastically dropped cluster bombs and napalm on the Vietnamese people. To call this piece of human filth a hero is like awarding an S.S. concentration camp commandant a medal.