OK, now I get it. A couple minor quibbles though. You are talking about the "effective" rate being different (because of the cap) for people with different incomes. The actual rate is the same for everyone.

Also, I consider a flat tax to be regressive. e.g. the sales tax is usually said to be regressive.

That being said, I think your descriptions of the two candidates' plans are a little creative. The only real difference is whether to remove the cap, or raise the cap, or leave it the same.

In the first place, it's clear Obama doesn't have a specific plan. When Hillary said eliminating the cap would "raise Social Security taxes by a trillion dollars," Obama's economic adviser said "that number could only be true if the cap were lifted entirely and immediately on all wage-earners - something he said Obama does not support."

Further, Obama said, "We might exempt sort of middle folks from maybe $97K up to 200K or there might be some exemptions, but once people are making over $200-250K, they can afford to pay a little more in payroll tax."

While I'm no expert on Social Security, I believe that currently we have both a cap on the income that is taxed and a cap on the amount of benefits that can be received. There is apparently some fairness in the way the system works. Whether the cap should be changed to make the system more fair seems to be an open question. If fairness is the object (as you suggest) Obama offers little or nothing to enlighten us on his view of that.

Given all of the above, and the fact that Social Security is not in crisis, it would seem that Paul Krugman's assessment is correct: Obama's position is more about trying to undercut Hillary and score political points than anything else.

Here's what she says about Social Security:

"We've got to fight and finally bury the idea of privatizing Social Security."

"When my husband left office, because we had a balanced budget and a surplus, there was a plan in place to extend the solvency of Social Security until 2055.

Once George Bush came in and we went back to deficit spending, [for] the last six and a half years what we've seen is a decrease in the life of the Social Security Trust Fund to 2041.

Well, when we get back to fiscal responsibility, we'll start paying back the Social Security Trust Fund. And that will give us a strong foundation to go toward fixing all of the long-term challenges that Social Security faces."

Not that I'm a big Hillary fan (I'm not), but the Clinton record on Social Security is a good one. On this issue, at least, it appears Obama is not "ready to lead on day one," as she has said so often.

(But, I thank you for taking the time to provide the links and explanations.)

A truly progressive income tax should include a continuous curve equation. There's a tremendous number which can be selected from, and probably a high school level equation would suffice.

We could probably save a forest of trees each year, also, if we went this way. No need to have all the pages lined with "tax brackets". You'd fill in your income and the equation would do its pain.

Regressive means the lower your income the higher the percentage of tax paid. Flat rate means the same percentage at all income levels. Progressive means the higher your income the higher the percentage of tax paid. The existing payroll tax is regressive because the tax paid by someone making say 30,000 (15% of that if self-employed, about 8% if employed) is a higher percentage than someone making say 500,000 (who under the present system pays about 15,000 or 3% of their income if self-employed, about half that or 1.5% of their income if employed). This is regressive. If the income cap were eliminated and all income levels subject to the existing payroll tax it would no longer be regressive but would become instead flat-rate (all income levels would be paying the same percentage of their income). If Obama's return to wage-earners of the first 500 of the payroll tax paid each year were implemented (and the 100K ceiling were removed), the payroll tax would actually become slightly progressive, not just flat-rate. Obama wants to move toward eliminating the present regressivity of the payroll tax (by eliminating the income cap), and Clinton wants to keep it regressive (i.e. no elimination of the income cap).

scroller -

I've had similar problems at times. I think CD has limits on the number of links in a post, and on the number of characters in a link.

How about my question about how Obama's plan to eliminate the $97,500 cap would make the Social Security tax "non-regressive?" I don't see it.

BobK, twice I have answered your question asking for links on the social security/payroll tax issue, and a third time just now on the "Clinton Lead Evaporates" article, and all three times my posts with links inexplicably have not appeared. (The first one was up briefly, then inexplicably disappeared; the next two never appeared.) I wrote nothing inflammatory or libelous etc. in any of these, just basic links to wire service articles in answer to what you asked. What I wrote has been widely reported; for links just do some google searching. Sorry--I tried (to answer you).

BobK--what I wrote on Obama's and Clinton's positions on the payroll tax has been well-reported and is hardly esoteric, but here are a few links in answer to your request.

On Clinton attack on Obama's proposal to raise the income cap on the payroll tax as a "trillion dollar tax increase" on the middle class, e.g. Boston Globe 2/4/08
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/04/obama_clinton_clash_over_social_security_healthc...
and again a couple weeks ago, MSNBC 1/16/08
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/16/583031.aspx

On Obama's proposal to return to the working poor (via a tax credit) the first $500 annually of payroll tax, see the Obama campaign website, http://www.barackobama.com/ , "Issues" on the menu, then "Poverty". Clinton has nothing comparable.

During the AARP debate in Iowa last October Clinton was asked if she would consider Edwards' proposal to have the payroll tax apply to incomes above 200K. Clinton answered something about the importance of fiscal responsibility without clearly answering the question, whereupon Edwards pressed "Was that no?" Clinton then was clear: "It's a no."
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3720221

There have been allegations that Clinton privately is less certain on excluding raising the income cap, but her public statements have attacked Obama on this issue. My description was based on her public statements.

On your objection that raising the income cap does not change the regressive nature of the payroll tax, look: the 15% payroll tax of a working poor small business owner earning 30,000 is $4,500, or 15%. If employed, it is half that around 8%. The payroll tax on someone earning $500,000 through self-employment is 15,000 or 3%, and half that (i.e. 1.5%) if that is salary. The higher the income, the lower the PERCENTAGE of payroll tax paid. Those earning below 100K pay the highest RATE of their total income. That is REGRESSIVE. If the payroll tax was applied to all earnings level it would CEASE to be REGRESSIVE and would become instead flat-rate. Clinton wants to keep the payroll tax REGRESSIVE (i.e. its present structure with the income cap), and ATTACKS Obama for wanting to END (or move toward ending) the REGRESSIVE nature of the payroll tax (i.e. remove the income cap on the tax).

Paul Bramscher - I don't know how much choice you've got.

It is either a grand shafting or another Republican. If it is just nausea, you may not be able to drink the soup, but you can still eat the crackers.

vaudree:

Here's what was going through my mind today with regard to Obama:

I'd feel worse about supporting something that turned out to be another grand shafting, rather than missing out on a genuine change for the better.

Maybe it's because I've seen too many Democrats let down too many people.

RE: - Wellstone had only served a couple terms in the Senate, and was still a relative newcomer when he was killed.

He seemed to be there longer than that - I guess it was how much he got done. ;) I was predicting that it was easier to get reelected without corporate backing to the Senate than to the Presidency.

I think that sometimes one recreates the dead (or the verbally gifted) with qualities they may not have otherwise possessed. In your opinion, how would Paul Wellstone have responded to the practice of rendition in general and the case of Maher Arar specifically. Ok, Wellstone was Jewish, but he was also an advocate for human rights and for peace.

Do you think that Obama lost more or gained more from associating himself with Wellstone? A lot of people are craving his reincarnation so there are a few gains there. Some people will be turned off by what they will see as crass opportunism but will these people prefer Hillary?

If you don't vote for Obama, it is either Hillary or the Repugs - or some Green person I have never heard of.

BeForKids February 4th, 2008 2:49 am-good post. to cut BeForKids post to street vernacular: It damn tiring to listen to all this squabbling, yes Obama aint no Wellstone but he's what we got, he is a politician and those are the animals that get in the final contest.

You can sit on the sidelines and pick your nose, vote for some loser candidate in the Green, Independent or temperance party OR get on board with the closet thing to a progressive that has any chance of winning-Senator Obama. He's not perfect but only Kucinich would have pleased the CD crowd but baby he's history.

limburger said,

"Barack voted against this unprovoked aggression in Iraq."

That is incorrect. The first vote that Obama ever cast against the Iraq War was in 2007, and that was when Hillary cast her first vote against the war as well.

Read the many posts above if you really think that Obama "carries the progressive Wellstone legacy forward." Paul is spinning in his grave.

I would have gone to bat for Hillary's election until she voted to authorize the pre-empitive Iraq war. I warned her then and I will keep my promise to never trust her again. Barack Obama'a integrity stands head and shoulders above Hillary's. That difference is enough for me. Paul Wellstone died tragically while I attended one of the largest anti-Iraq war protests in Washington, DC. Barack voted against this unprovoked aggression in Iraq and it is only fitting that he carries the progressive Wellstone legacy forward. My dream team would be a Obama-Edwards or Obama-Kucinich ticket. They could reverse much of the damage inflicted by the criminal Bush cabal.

scroller,

First, I still ask you to post links to your sources for the information you provided in your earlier post.

Second, the Social Security tax is regressive because people of all incomes pay the same rate (on income up to a cap of $97,500). I don't understand your claim that Obama's plan to eliminate the $97,500 cap would "transform" the tax "from regressive to non-regressive."

It seems that Obama's plan would only extend the regressive tax to include income above $97,500. Everyone would still be paying the same rate, regardless of whether they earn $35,000/year or $3.5 million a year. Therefor, it's still regressive.

BobK, on the Paul Krugman column, I consider Krugman one of the clearest and best columnists in America today, but this is one of the truly rare cases in which I think Paul Krugman erred--not on his point about the social security fiscal crisis being overblown (that critique is correct, for all of the reasons your other link from FAIR bring out as well), but in what is going on with Obama on this. I honestly think Krugman misunderstood Obama here.

Krugman was assuming the only reason to invoke a social security crisis was for the Republican reasons to discredit the program. But there is nothing to indicate that is where Obama is going. Obama is going somewhere quite different with this (which the brilliant Krugman, again I say, appears to have misunderstood). Obama was citing the social security shortfall to sell a transformation of the payroll tax from regressive to non-regressive. THAT is Obama's solution AGAINST the Republicans' solution of gutting the program.

Krugman, FAIR, and others have shown that Republicans have over-hyped the social security shortfall. But don't stop there! Krugman prominently among other analysts has soberly written of the REAL fiscal problems with Medicare (far more than social security). Medicare is also funded by the same payroll tax which funds social security. The way the payroll tax is done with the one affects the other equally.

Republican ideologues cite these fiscal problems cynically out of an agenda to ultiimately get rid of these programs. Krugman is right on that. But that is clearly not Obama's agenda by any rational assessment. Obama's agenda is a non-regressive payroll tax. Clinton however, has explicitly and publicly made clear she opposes a non-regressive payroll tax. She wants to keep it regressive. Nothing in the FAIR or Krugman articles you cite contradict this.

WAKE UP MINNESOTA. BARACK OBAMA IS NO PAUL WELLSTONE. AND GUESS WHAT ELSE, HE ISN'T A WANNABE EITHER. TRANSPARENT AS HIS VOTING RECORD.

I guess he'll go to the South West next to claim the legacy of Cesar Chavez.

Barack Husein Obama - He's so authentic!

Obama is hype for an image driven society and the young.
I would like to know what he has done while he has been in office.
I do not see anything.
Optimism is a dangerous thing.
He also said he would raise taxes-that is usually the nails for the coffin of anyone running for office.
I suppose the young and his followers either do not pay taxes or expect the taxes to come from someone else.
When the economy is in this state of dissarry people may be looking for a savior.
Obama said illegals were no effect on wages and were just being skategoated.
I wonder what public reaction would have been had Clinton or McCain said this?
People seem ready to rah rah this person.
Endorsements only matter to people to lazy to research a candidate and his issues.
If this is where we are at as a country I do not understand why a celebrity does not run for office.

Here's some additional perspective on Social Security. According to Princeton economist and NYT columnist, Paul Krugman, Obama's position is not only wrong, it appears to be a cynical political ploy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html

Fair.org has also reported on the Social Security non-crisis over the years, and their latest report is here:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3200

scroller -

"Here is one difference between Obama and Clinton and it is HUGE: social security."

Can you give us links to evidence for your claims?

vaudree,

Wellstone had only served a couple terms in the Senate, and was still a relative newcomer when he was killed. Furthermore, although there are neocon Jews in Bush's ranks, it is still rare for Catholics to be president -- let alone Jews or Mormons.

RE: - Be wary when Charisma and Ambition are combined in the same man.

You mean like with Brian Mulroney and Ronnie Reagan? It is these vague dream part (which can mean anything anyone wants it to mean) that scares me. No two people have the same dreams or believe that they are achieved in exactly the same way. Obama is much better a person than Mulroney and Reagan, but both M & R talked in terms of dreams. Tommy Douglas was more specific as to what exactly needed to change.

Edwards promised us no more Maher Arars. Does Obama make the same promise? I looked and can't find where he says whether he does or not. With Clinton, I think there is a good chance of more Arars. What is Obama's policy on rendition?

The other thing is that experienced politicians know to keep expectations reasonable because one's performance is measured, not against the performance of others, but against others expectations of you. So one can get in on dreams but others can become disillusioned quickly if they all don't come true right away.

I think that Obama has the potential to be either a good President or a bad President, but that he'll need to tone himself down a bit or the Repugs will make sure he will be competing against his speeches in office.

Charisma aside. I want a good reason to support Obama. All I have are three piss-poor reasons to support Obama:

1) He is not Republican;
2) He is not Hillary Clinton;
3) By doing so, I get to (metaphorically) shit on the grave of a racist;

RE: - hopefully he won't get assassinated.

I am starting to wonder whether you guys would prefer it - so that Obama's Presidency could be seen in retrospect as the next coming of Christ. Obama has about as much chance of being assassinated as Avi Lewis does.

RE: - And if you listened to a Wellstone speech and an Obama speech back to back, the difference would be striking. And Obama speech is full of pollster-tested, feel-good phrases like 'hope' and 'change'. But no real content to back it up. A Wellstone speech was nothing but 'content'. Wellstone never tried to hide what he would do when elected.

Well put. Those who liked Wellstone liked his ideas and his determination and his tenacity. What ever charisma Wellstone had came from his conviction and strongly held beliefs - the inspiration came from his ideas and his well thought out plan for trying to get them implemented.

RE: - Obama would never have gotten away with invoking Wellstones' name if John Edwards were still in the race.

But, sadly, Edwards isn't in the race any more. Edwards made me feel hopeful in a way that Obama hasn't.

Strange that Wellstone never attempted to run for President, though.

When handicapping this 20008 Presidential race I am reminded of the old adage-"nothing is as timely/popular as an idea whose time has come"! I am one of those political junkies that keep my ear to the ground of political goings on. What I surmise is that the Obama phenomena is just that-A phenomena-a ground swell of the people who have reached their limits of hypocrisy, lying,stealing,killing,and all of the machinations that this nation has been put through by politicians on the pay roll of multinational/global corporations.Remember the movie Network where the people rebelled and yelled from their windows "Im mad as hell and Im not going to take it anymore", that is what is going on now. Their windows are their collective voices at the ballot box and Barak Obama is the physical manisfestation of that Voice. America is at the cross roads of change, that fork in the road of history that is used as a springboard to propel America forward to a more complete unity and to make real, once and for all, the true meaning of freedom,justice, and equality. The Barak Obama campaign is not only progressive but is the tip of the progressive spear and is the continuation of the civil/human rights movement worldwide.

There is the Green Party, Nader is sure to be running also (though it would be nice if they were running together), and we might see another independent come out of the woodwork.

Too bad they don't all combine forces, though. When the messages are like 90%+ identical, there is no sensible reason to split opposition to the Republicrats.

Fear not, opnhed.

The Third Party is coming. Just ignore all the Super Tuesday BS, and start rallying people for when the REAL candidate appears!

**Further, Obama evoking Wellstone is absolutely galling.

Name dropping...is that something new? Where's that THIRD PARTY?

Obama has yet to put forth a single, tangible and concrete proposal on anything of concern to the voters of this nation. Time after time I have waited in vain for this man to articulate a specific program. I have concluded that he is all talk and no substance. Thus with no other Democratic candidates on the horizon, I cannot support him, but will probably not vote at all since to do so would mean voting Republican, something I would never do.

It may not even be a DLC Swift Boating, but rather a sell-out. Maybe it's a scenario that goes something like this:

* Various corporations/industries/sectors (foreign and domestic) put money behind each candidate, or both for good measure.
* Once the endorsed candidates are identified, the campaign parade begins.
* The industries squabble with one another in back room meetings, each laying out what it wants for the next four (or eight) years.
* One of the candidates is picked by them, and the other side is bought off.
* The side destined to lose is instructed to perform a handful of stupid things in the weeks prior to the general election.

Maybe Hillary will come out to rural audiences and tell them she'll confiscate all guns in the event of a national emergency. Maybe Obama will go down south and say something that will cause him to lose every southern state.

It just looks like self-destruction from our perspective, whereas it might be a controlled/deliberate "exit strategy" from another. Now maybe I'm wrong, but I've seen other Democrats do things too weak to be true.

And if the DLC swift-boats Barack, and Hillary is the candidate, what will all you alleged liberals do?

Will you go like sheep to the polls and vote for Hillary, a conservative candidate owned by special interest groups?

Or will you show some backbone, and vote Green Party?

Would Paul Wellstone legacy also include supporting the Patriot ACT?
Chalk up another win for the MSM spin.

Face it, Obama wouldn't stand a chance if he were running against Wellstone today. I believe Wellstone was taken out because he did represent Change. I live in MN, and my take on this is Obama just put his foot his in mouth.

Here is one difference between Obama and Clinton 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. 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 raising the tax on the working poor even HIGHER. (What else does "fiscal responsibility" combined with excluding raising the income ceiling mean?)

This is a real difference in vision on this issue. With Obama: ending the regressivity of the payroll tax (and ending the rationale of Republicans of its fiscal problems). With Clinton: keep this tax regressive as it is (and forever fight Republican attacks that it is fiscally unviable, which provide rhetorical cover for Republicans gutting the program).

This morning when I went outside, my hair was blown straight back by the wind generated from Wellstone's spinning in his grave, roughly a thousand miles away in Minnesota.

I have a very simple method for voting which I think everyone should use...1. In the primary determine who is the most progressive/liberal/ socialist and who has a reasonable chance of winning and vote for that person. 2. Always vote Democrat for senate house and general elections, unless you're lucky enough to have an anti-war Ron Paul type Republican, then and only then should you consider to vote Republican, yet Republicans like that are extremely rare these days. 3. If you don't know just vote Democrat chances are 95% of the time you'll be voting for the best person to represent your interests.

The jingle, "Change comes from the bottom up" may really refer to suffering as it moves upward to include more from the middle-class. Can you be certain, in reality, that this is not the change which he refers? The only certainty is that the corporate hog's contributions protect them from "Change." Edwards and Kucinich were ignored and dismissed because they were not Corporate Candidates, and they voiced exactly what they intended to change! The threat to the corporations by these candidates, insured the crowning of the two "Viable Candidates" we have left, the same ones who have deep pockets filled with IOU's. The 2008 elections leave us with what the corporate owned media selects for voters to choose from. In the end, what is left? deciding who is the least worse candidate, and even this is a difficult determination! When we will make a choice for a best candidate? and shame on us for letting this happen again, and again, and again.

AND, to correct the poster who said the Kennedy family is backing Obama, this is untrue. The Kennedy family is split, with 1/2 of the Kennedy family supporting Clinton.

Bigfoot - Your man, Barack Husein Obama, he of the Muslim heritage, has no chance of winning the General Election in 2008.

Why do you Obama supporters insist on pushing a fantasy?

When you take the simple fact that he is unelectable, and combine it with the fact that he is a shameless phony, as evidenced by this article, how can you support him?

Abandon the Democratic party! They are not worthy of the support of progressives.

I'm worried ab out some of the posters here on CD..the fact that Obama once called Wellstone a "gadfly" by no means discredits his show of respect and appeal to carry on the late senators legacy! I mean after all the term gadfly is not even necessarily a derogatory one. Socrates called himself a gadfly of the Athenian democracy...I have had, and still have, my doubts about Obama, but compared to the other options on the table he looks great! We "progressives" have to be a little bit more accepting of differences and willing to work piece-meal for change rather than expecting some messianic revolution, otherwise we just end up being "regressives".

Pacem in terris

I think that Obama, unlike most progressives, is pragmatic. He compromises (dirty word) and forges alliances and plays hardball politics to win his goals. He hit back at Hillary and Bill in South Carolina but he didn't play dirty like they did. His Illinois state Senate primary campaign challenged an opponent's campaign petition signatures and that kept her off the ballot, so then the signatures didn't pass the smell test. It's not making nice, but not unethical either. He's entering an arena where people don't play fair and eat nice guys alive. So what do you want - a winner or a loser?

What I like about him is his goals. Unlike Dennis and Gravel he is a political animal. He knows the rules; you need lots of money to win and don't piss off the corporations. Otherwise all you can do is influence the discussion. Not a bad thing, but not winning either. The big question is what will he do as president? I'm gambling he's on our side. His past indicates I'm right. As he said, "If you want to go to the moon, but don't have enough gas, you go as far as you can". He may not be my ideal candidate but at least he wants to go in the right direction. Let's see how far he gets. No other candidate with a chance of winning, including Hillary, wants to go in our direction. We know in what direction she would be headed. Not one we want to go. And give Obama this credit, he galvanizes new voters.

My favorite Rolling Stones song lyrics are:

You can't always get what you want
And if you try sometime you find
You get what you need

kathyodat

Gee, Bigfoot, thanks! We didn't know that.

" Bigfoot February 4th, 2008 12:43 am

A little reality here, folks. There is no 100% liberal progressive electable candidate in 2008 America. So get behind the nearest thing in Obama."

LIKE DISNEYLAND, I.E., FANTASY.

Writer didn't do their homework.
The Wellstone Memorial was not at Target Center but at Williams Arena on the University of Minnesota campus.

Paul Wellstone's memorial was not held at the Target Center in Minneapolis or ANY corporate location as this article incorrectly states. It was held at Roy Williams Memorial Auditorium at the University of Minnesota.

ChrisHorton,

I'm waiting. I wanted to vote for somebody in the next general election. I was determined to vote Kucinich in the primary, and I did by absentee. Then he dropped out. Now I'm waiting. Ralph Nader might enter the race. I know you probably won't vote for Ralph. I respect that. I'm tired of voting least-best party. Some would say my vote will go for a spoiler, but I see it differently. If I were to vote Obama or Clinton in November, my candidate would stand a great chance of winning, but I would be voting against my best interest. I would lose. I don't own a corporation and I don't invest in them. I try to live a responsible life, so I vote who I think has the most integrity. Nader and Gravel are what I've got to choose from. Nader stands a better chance than Gravel. So now, I'm just waiting.

A little reality here, folks. There is no 100% liberal progressive electable candidate in 2008 America. So get behind the nearest thing in Obama. If not, then you'll deserve Hill-Bill, or worse, any Republican running.

Ooops, forgot the url, which I had initially included, but the Web browsers and/or Internet connection got screwed up and my revisions obliterated.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_democracy_now

READ THAT if you are sincere about the Nov. elections and haven't yet read or heard or listened to this real enough debate on Kucinich's and DN's parts; it's the best that could be expected after he was despotically and very anti-Constitutionally, ... excluded from the live Las Vegas debate.

I agree with what ChrisHorton begins with saying, but as soon as he's stating his promotion of Barack Obama, then we part ways. Similarly enough, with respect to what vaudree says.

Obama having the gall to refer to Paul Wellstone (as if a similar), and based on what I read of PW anyway, is unacceptable. Obama should not do this, if he is really honest; but he's being another political hypocrite, charlatan, very likely, if not surely, anyway. Hypocrites and untrustworthy people make such "comparitive" references, referring to themselves, explicitly or implicitly, as if being like people who were indeed of good, right character, principles.

And as for Obama having opposed the war on Iraq in 2002, people should STOP stating this reference! Only IDIOTS would do that! I've seen many enough references to this so-called part of his history, but [never] with links to supporting articles. And even if there are any such articles, which remains to be proven by his fan club, this so-called stand of his is of really little good relevance today, while the real or more significant relevance is not good or positive. It's either not true, or it minimally illustrates hypocrisy and spinelessness on his part; if he really did [seem] to significantly oppose war on Iraq in 2002.

His senatorial track record is what needs to be given attention; and it's the complete opposite of anything good or at all sound. This track record is really no different from Billary's, and they're both in bed with the hidden and ruling elites; and Obama's already proven to be of a political nature that he'll fold to them, before he'll oppose. His total and strong siding with the Cheney-Bush administration in threatening Iran, including with nuclear strikes, speaks VERY LOUDLY, for the non-totally deaf and "thick as a brick" (obstinately opaque) among us.

Etc.

SEE what Kucinich states in the following simulated debate, in which it is obvious that this is indeed him speaking as we could and would (if we know of him sufficiently) be saying in the present DP candidate debates. He has withdrawn from the electoral campaigning, as he did in 2004, but one or two of his sharp supporters reminded me here, over the past month or so, that he's not wrong in doing this; and they are right. Like Kucinich says in the answers he gives to us through Dem. Now!, reforming the DP is no overnight-easy matter to work on; it's a very long-term project and one he might not see fruition from during his lifetime.

LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT VERY MUCH IS POLITICS; unless WE, THE PEOPLE, REALLY GET OFF OF OUR LAZY, COMPLACENT, COWARDLY, MUSHY PACIFIST ASSES AND HELP HELP HISTORY PROGRESS FRUITIVELY MORE QUICKLY, WHICH OF COURSE AMERICANS AREN'T GOING TO EVEN ATTEMPT, LET ALONE DO. NO JOAN OF ARCS IN THE USA; just murderers and lazy, cushy, ... pacifists. The few Americans with real heart don't act because they'd give up their lives for nothing but a mass of lazy, complacent, ..., and corrupt citizens, while doing no good for Iraqis, Afghans, Haitians, Africans, and so on. After all, it can be right to want to do otherwise, but only fools wouldn't head for the hills when there's no way of making any good difference in terms of imperialist, etc., hell being reined in upon Humanity.

People mustn't blame Kucinich; there's nothing more that he can really do. The People also have to do their part; he's provided his lead, and The People treat him as insignificant. Oh well, he won't be the first or last of honourable representatives of national and world politics; there've been and will surely be others, some.

"Breaking the Sound Barrier
Democracy Now! Re-Hosts NBC Las Vegas Debate to Include Kucinich After NBC Wins Appeal to Exclude Him", Jan 16 2008,

Carefully read Kucinich's answers; they're wholly pertinent and reality-based.

READ, VIEW OR LISTEN TO THAT SIMULATED DEBATE; it's the best we can have given he was despotically, ... excluded from the live debate.

Don't do that? Then stop your hellbent bitching childishness!

We're screwed. Where's the choice??? Hillary / Obama ...
bought and paid for by lobbyists / corporations. People like Wellstone, JFK, RFK, and others were murdered for telling the truth. Neither Hillary nor Obama has the (gall) to really stand up for the people...they are just shills for the elitist financial cabal that runs the world.

Where's your daddy baby:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/writ-f02.shtml

In the 2008 election cycle so far the television, film and music industry has provided the various candidates with $15,354,208 in contributions, 77 percent of that going to the Democrats (www.opensecrets.org). Individuals or Political Action Committees involved in movie production specifically have handed over $4,175,659—91 percent to the Democratic Party.

On the list of top industries contributing to the Clinton campaign, "television, music and movies" ranks 7th, having given $2.1 million. The same industry ranks 6th on Obama's list, having contributed $2.2 million. Clinton has received $6.3 million from the Los Angeles-Long Beach, California area (with $565,525 coming from Beverly Hills), while Obama has taken in $5.1 million from the same area.

Among the top 20 contributors to the Clinton campaign organized by individual firm, along with banking and investment giants Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, one finds Redstone's National Amusements ($193,850), Time Warner ($124,150) and Murdoch's News Corp ($99,350).

On Obama's list, in addition to Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse, one again comes across the names of National Amusements ($220,950) and Time Warner ($142,718).

Does the man have no limit to audacity!!!!

Wellstone would not have had the duplicity to outright lie about his Nuclear Industry pandering (MSNBC article yesterday), as Obama did in Iowa and so many other questionable ways of operating. The unfair way he characterized Edwards record, calling him hypocritical as a populist, and then after Edwards suspends his race, claiming Edwards always was a voice for the voiceless. I know Edwards to be just that, Mr. Obama, but you always try to have it two ways, as it suits you. I kind of doubt, too, that Senator Wellstone would have operated toward Alice Palmer in Chicago the way you did, too, or given Ronald Reagan such a favorable plug in Arizona. No, Mr. Nice Guy, you have not been a Senator Wellstone. Wellstone had a different standard.

I have heard some of my supposedly progressive friends, saying that Obama understands that change comes from the bottom up. In addition to P. Bramscher's observations, I would like to add this: in order for a people's movement to gain traction, there has to be an institution capable of responding, in order to start the transformation.

In early 2003, it didn't matter how many millions around the world protested the war--I believe the numbers were record-breaking--the media here basically responded with a collective yawn, if they responded at all. Similarly, the majority of the so-called opposition party, the Dems, certainly didn't seem to care about the movement, when they went ahead and voted to authorize the war. Even today, when record numbers of Americans oppose the war, even the National Journal's most liberal senator of all (yeah, right), Barack Obama, still can't respond to that reality by voting not to fund the war.

I don't know what kind of grassroots movement it would take in this period to affect the insular and insulated, Wall St. and Pentagon-dominated folks of both parties who work in DC. Forgive me, but I am really skeptical of this "please, make me do it" kind of approach to considering liberal policy positions.

People don't need "support" to move one way or the other. They are or they aren't. And they can't be all things to all people.

I've seen a meme here lately that runs like this: politicians need to be led. The previous poster echoes this also, and suggests that Obama is like a tabula rosa, an automaton, a robot with a blank slate. Just put a disk into him and click "install".

I don't think so, folks.

Obama said a movement is bottom up. Could he be asking for some support so that he can move to the left?

I think Clinton will be much tougher to move to the left. Whoever gets elected we need to push them hard left so that out of the nature of politicians to pander they at least stop going right.

Should anyone be interested in finding out what REALLY happened to Paul, check out this:

http://readersparadise.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=68&osCsid=c43fc6528e781f8f9ed9f...

BeForKids February 3rd, 2008 5:43 pm

Dear kathyodat,
I read the article about Mr. Obama and what struck me is how little he has done to be a contender for president. Sorry, I don't mean to be a jerk, but his resume is pretty lightweight and lackluster. It amazing how much support he can generate without actually having done much.

What did surprised me was what a little backstabber he is.
I quote the article:

"Ms. Palmer invited Mr. Obama, then 35, to run for her seat."

But after losing in the primary, Ms. Palmer had second thoughts. A delegation of her supporters asked Mr. Obama to step aside. He not only declined, but his campaign staff challenged the signatures on Ms. Palmer's campaign petitions and kept her off the ballot.

Check this out folks, guaranteed to not impress you at all:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

BeForKids February 3rd, 2008 5:43 pm

Dear kathyodat,
I read the article about Mr. Obama and what struck me is how little he has done to be a contender for president. Sorry, I don't mean to be a jerk, but his resume is pretty lightweight and lackluster. It amazing how much support he can generate with actually having done much.

What did surprised me was what a little back stabber he is.
I quote the article:

"Ms. Palmer invited Mr. Obama, then 35, to run for her seat."

But after losing in the primary, Ms. Palmer had second thoughts. A delegation of her supporters asked Mr. Obama to step aside. He not only declined, but his campaign staff challenged the signatures on Ms. Palmer's campaign petitions and kept her off the ballot.

tailcap Do you not undertand the possibility that even bringing impeachment proceedings may, under circumstances someone Ken Lay or William Bennett might stretch around the moon spending more millions of dollars, serve to bar any and all subsequent proceedings? Like all the extended assets of all parties to the profit and have FEMA move them to the 9th ward. That's where they hurt. There is no shame in them. I'd like to bet against Double Jeopardy, and a bird in the hand. Why don't you get an answer to that before the next bray. I'd like to know.

Hillary is still justifying the war on Iraq. First she went along with it, then she changed her mind, now she's back to justifying it. Talk about flip-flopping.

Obama called the brave Paul Wellstone a "gadfly?" What a phoney SOB. Between him and Hillary, I think I'm going to barf. :(

The first thing that came to mind when I saw the headline was 'Senator, now you've crossed the line'. Reading the story confirmed that reaction. There's no comparison between Wellstone and Obama, and I can hardly believe that Minnesotans went for that statement hook, line and sinker. Wellstone spinning in his grave, indeed.

re. Obama's non-vote on the Lieberman amendment on Iran:

Ouch!

Sorry. I knew that once, brushed it under my memory rug.

So does that still leave a significant difference between Clinton and Obama?

Obama would never have gotten away with invoking Wellstones' name if John Edwards were still in the race.

Paul Wellstone said:
"The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power."

And:
"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak."

These words do not describe Obama, the second highest recipient of Wall Street money, do they?

Obama claims Wellstone's legacy? Well, I claim the legacies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Charlemagne and Jesus! So there. The universe, by divine right, belongs to ME.

Here's the vote from the House, too many YEAS to list, here's the NAYS and NVs.

NAYS--16

Abercrombie

Baldwin

Bartlett (MD)

Blumenauer

Conyers

Ellison

Flake

Gilchrest

Hinchey

Lee

McDermott

Miller, George

Moore (WI)

Olver

Paul

Stark

NOT VOTING--19

Berry

Bishop (GA)

Carson

Cubin

Davis (IL)

Davis, Jo Ann

Delahunt

Herger

Jindal

Johnson (IL)

Johnson, E. B.

Kucinich

Lampson

Platts

Poe

Ross

Schmidt

Snyder

Tiahrt

Chris Horton - "And on the crucial and very telling issue of branding the Iran Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, which may well have set the stage for the next war, Clinton joined the Republicans in voting in favor, while Obama opposed it."

This is not true. He was absent when the vote was cast. It was a strategic absence. He avoided alienating independents and Repugs in being absent. Gravel even called him on it in the Dem debate the next day.

I question Horton's post here regarding a vote for Obama not because I dislike him, but because we're a much more vigilant group here at CD and nobody else had picked up on it yet. Keep the facts straight please because when bloggers catch other bloggers intentionally misleading they tend to disregard future posts by that blogger.

Chris, go to the vote on this and see for yourself: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vo... (or scroll down to the senators "not voting").

here's the nays

Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

where's your vote mr obama.

ascott September 26th, 2007 5:51 pm
I'll post this again:

Naughty Democrats who voted FOR this amendment:

Akaka (HI)
Baucus (MT)
Bayh (IN)
Cardin (MD)
Carper (DE)
Casey (PA)
Clinton (NY)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Durbin (IL)
Feinstein (CA)
Harkin (IA)
Johnson (SD)
Kohl (WI)
Landrieu (LA)
Lautenberg (NJ)
Levin (MI)
Menendez (NJ)
Mikulski (MD)
Murray (WA)
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Reed (RI)
Reid (NV)
Rockefeller (WV)
Salazar (CO)
Schumer (NY)
Stabenow (MI)
Whitehorse (RI)
_____
_____

Note:

Sanders, the Independent from Vermont, voted NAY.
_____

Republicans who voted NAY:

Hagel (NE)
Lugar (IN)
_____

Not voting:

McCain (R- AZ)
Obama (D - IL)

Also, you mentioned that he's committed to getting the troops out of Iraq:

"Indeed, Obama has promised to enlarge the size of the uniformed armed forces by more than 92,000 troops. Given that the United States - surrounded by two oceans and two weak friendly neighbors - is essentially safe from any potential conventional attack, this position inevitably raises the question of what he intends to do with that expanded military capability."

As I read through the comments, I was surprised not to quickly find the now infamous (among well-informed CD'ers) "gadfly" quote that Obama gave to David Sirota. So, of course, just as I went to post it not one but two others did, too.

That's why I read CD postings. So many here are so well-informed.

First Obama went to conservative Reno, Nevada (January 15, 2008) and praised Ronald Reagan.

("Afternoon with Barack Obama" at RGJ.com)
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&SearchID=73307550548504

Then, Obama went to Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta (January 20, 2008), and praised Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris

Two polar opposites in American history: Dr. King, the champion of the Civil Rights movement, and Ronald Reagan, the champion of white backlash to Civil Rights with his theme of "states' rights" and taking power back from the federal government.

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16349)

Then, Obama went to liberal Minneapolis, Minnesota (February 2, 2008) and praised anti-war Senator Paul Wellstone.

Who will Obama praise next? War-hawk Senator Joe Lieberman?

Oh that's right, he already did!

(connecticutblog, March 31, 2006)

Here's the real kicker: Obama claims to be the candidate with the most "integrity."

Get it real. three points: Wellstone, and the Iowa corn votes, and underdog status

1)Wellstone:
"He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a "gadfly,"
in a tone laced with contempt ...."
source: davidsirota.com/index.php/mr-obama-goes-to-washington/ - 49k

2)Corn Politics, Huge Issue in Iowa.

"One of the sharpest substantive divides is over ethanol, an issue of particular potency in Iowa.
The vote in question was an effort to block a proposed amendment to the 2005 energy bill that
would have established an ethanol mandate for refineries."If there were ever an onerous,
anti-competitive, anti-free-market provision, this is it," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.),

"If someone voted or has a position against ethanol, it will be used by their opponents
and it will be another issue they need to overcome" with voters in the Iowa caucuses,
said Steffen Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University.

Obama voted YEA
Clinton voted, NAY
source: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123101004_pf.html

3)Underdog: Oprah, David Geffen, Soros, Brzezinski.... over $100million campaign...
remember another things, friends. Obama got ANCA to back him Jan, 24 2008.
that easily could have brought in 100,000 new donations overnight.

let me tell you, something.

Obama's claim is an insult to the legacy of Paul Wellstone. Further it illustrates most articulately that Obama is all about flowery oratory sans real content.The more this guy speaks the less I care for his style frankly. A real pity that the first legitimate African American candidate for the highest office in the land is a windbag and a poser.

In the interest of equal time I would note that the first legitimate woman to have a shot at the highest office is only a very little bit better.

Obama is no Paul Wellstone. In fact, in the past Obama described Wellstone first as "magnificent" and then as a "gadfly" in a "tone laced with contempt...."

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/mr-obama-goes-to-washington/

Here's the quote:

"Obama's deference to these boundaries was hammered home to me when our discussion touched on the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Obama said the progressive champion was "magnificent." He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a "gadfly," in a tone laced with contempt for the senator who, for instance, almost single-handedly prevented passage of the bankruptcy bill for years over the objections of both parties. This clarified Obama's support for the Hamilton Project, an organization formed by Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to fight back against growing populist outrage within the party. And I understood why Beltway publications and think tanks have heaped praise on Obama and want him to run for President. It's because he has shown a rare ability to mix charisma and deference to the establishment."

A perfect description of who Barack Obama really is.

This is pathetic.

Obama is corporate America's second favorite Dem (Hillary is no. 1).

Obama called Wellstone a "gadfly" so for him to claim the great Wellstone's mantle is appalling.

Can we please have some honesty, Obama?

The sound you hear is Wellstone turning over in his grave.

The difference is Wellstone had a long track record of actually doing things and fighting fights that needed to be fought. He didn't disappear into the US Senate for his first 4 years. He stood up and started fighting.

And if you listened to a Wellstone speech and an Obama speech back to back, the difference would be striking. And Obama speech is full of pollster-tested, feel-good phrases like 'hope' and 'change'. But no real content to back it up. A Wellstone speech was nothing but 'content'. Wellstone never tried to hide what he would do when elected.

I'm pretty much at the point where the Dems mostly make me want to puke. But this one really takes the cake. Obama trying to claim he's the next Wellstone? What a freakin joke!

okay I'll read it, thanks.

tailcap, for the third time in my life, I will vote for a Democrat for President, and after reading what Obama accomplished in the Illinois state Senate, and particularly what he aspired to accomplish - and I have no doubt he would have gone far if he wasn't headed for the US presidency, which is fine by me - I feel confident that he can do much as President. And I have a sense of what he wants to do. For one thing, he sees one of the roles of a leader as community organizer, to empower people. And as he pointed out, he knows how to do that. When I read the issues he chose to make his fight, and how he fought, then yes, we do have another Wellstone. But because he gets his way not by being confrontational, hopefully he won't get assassinated. I think with him we could go far. He's very smart about picking his battles and choosing his timing. Give him a chance. He's on the side of the people. If he came roaring out like Kucinich, Gravel and Edwards did, he'd be dead in the water. That's not how he works.

tailcap, Check out the link I posted above and then please I would like to hear your comment.

kathyodat

The Wellstone memorial service was not held at Target Center.

Well they will never have to kill Obama in a plane crash, thats for sure. They? It rhymes with They!

Well, I've met Wellstone a couple times, and went to his memorial service. I didn't feel compelled to see Obama here yesterday.

Cool. We are in a constitutional crisis in this country. You see, we have just experienced a coup d'etat but only a few have taken note. bush has taken on the extraordinary power to ignore laws and break them at will. With his use of signing statements he pretty much does whatever he pleases.

Meanwhile the so-called opposition party headed by presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do and say nothing about the crisis, effectively burying their heads in the sand.

They are both part and parcel of the establishment, indeed they would never have come this far if they were not. Any genuine candidate of change like Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader are either ridiculed by the MSM or ignored altogether. Candidates Gravel and Ron Paul have also met similar fates.

If you examine their very similar voting records you'll see they both voted to fund the war while proclaiming to desire its end. Both have plans to maintain thousands of troops in Iraq in order to help prop up the colonial puppet government we set up there.

They both tilted toward "liberal" positions in 2007 in order to climb up the liberal rating scale and win votes from their left wing, but of course you'll see whichever one prevails run towards center-right and abandon their left wing once they secure the nomination.

If they are leaders then why do they not lead us out of Iraq, bush the war criminal into impeachment and then The Hague. Why? Why? Why? Now that would show spine that hasn't been evident in Bendovercrats since I can remember. It is precisely because they refuse to perform their constitutional obligation to uphold the laws that bush has been able to basically crap all over our country with not so much as a whimper from the "opposition party". They now want our votes. They did nothing to stem bush's evil but now want us to trust them that they will once they get elected. Hah! Oh please.

Now the sky is falling and we must support the bush collaborating Dims in spite of the fact they have betrayed us as evidenced by their "leader" Pelosi who has flat out refused to hold bush accountable for the many laws he has broken. It is immoral and illegal for her to not hold him accountable. How can we call ourselves a country of laws when so clearly we have two sets of laws, one for the rich and powerful and one for everybody else? The O'Billarys refuse to take a lead and are only intent on pandering to whatever block of voters they need at the time.

Now is the time for the people to refuse to buy into this farce called an election cycle. We know we don't really have any choices except two pro-big business, pro-war, and pro-establishment candidate that are the best money can buy. Yup. So we go on endlessly debating Dweedl-Dee-ism.

It is time to begin the protests we are going to need to take our country back and stop smoking Obama's opiate of hope. Forget the O'Billarys both! They are both beyond hope. Dump the Dims. Go third party. Punish the Dims for selling out. Pull out the carrot and take out the stick! So what if it elects a Repug, not really that much difference, just look at who the Dims they let become Attorney General, a guy who can't even get himself to say that water-boading is torture. If a Repug gets in he will run the country into the dirt and that can serve as a wake up call to the sleeping masses. Thank you Bendovercrats. Thank you very much, and don't look for me at the polls on election day!

Before people judge too quickly, I encourage them to read an interesting NYT article about Obama, written back in July 2007. Link below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

He's pretty exceptional, and there's a world of difference between him and Hillary. Please read what he's done and what he wanted to do, and then get back to CD with your opinions. I for one am more impressed than I was before. Before I was just hopeful, but now I'm impressed and I understand better why Kucinich suggested his delegates support him and why Kennedy has endorsed him. Looking for a progressive? Read the article.

kathyodat

Good grief - the man is shameless!

Be wary when Charisma and Ambition are combined in the same man.

Don't be afraid, necessarily.

But be-ware.

-matti.

we took a chance with bill clinton back in 1992.......SO LET'S TAKE A CHANCE WITH OBAMA......OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT IN 2009 !!!!

When the people lead, the leaders follow. Obama is no Paul Wellstone. He is no Jack Kenendy, and Jack Kennedy was a poor president with the bay of Pigs, etc. The presidential election is a staged reality show. It is no more reality than it is an election. It is a "selection" not an election and the media determines who will get selected. It is, I might add, a one-billion dollar selection. As for Obama being the "New School". Really? Is that why the old cold warrior from the Old School, Zbigniew Brzezinski is backing and supporting Obama?

This article ended too abruptly.

About the article's theme: yes, Obama and Wellstone are similar leaders, and boy do we need such a leader!

Sometimes, when we think we have everything figured out, planned out, the script as to how things should go, along comes something or someone who throws you for a loop, and that is what is happening with Obama and the people. Obama is challenging us, by challenging the status quo like no one has after Wellstone left. We have prayed long and hard for such a leader, as we suffered through Bush, and now as the status quo tries to pass the baton (or is it crown?) to Hillary Clinton, the people say wait a minute, not so fast!
The leadership of Obama is a moral leadership and that is what we need at this juncture. He is competent and able, and with the rousing of the masses to vote him in, there will be the big change that we need. Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill are "OLD SCHOOL."

While Wellstone spins in his grave...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

"Yes we can.

It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.

Yes we can to justice and equality.

Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.

Yes we can heal this nation.

Yes we can repair this world.

Yes we can."

----

If Obama gets people activated, like the celebrities who made this video, change might be a train no one can stop? It may be bigger than Obama? That would be my hope.

I can see why Kucinich supported Obama...

I am more concern with whether the claim of legacy is legitimate or just a means of securing votes.

Obama wants Edwards's supporter votes, that is for sure. Claiming Paul Wellstone in Minnesota is - well - he was a hero there! Paul Wellstone was the closest Minnesota got to having their own remdition of Martin Luther King.

I have been very outspoken and scathing about the media's selection of "major candidates" for the Democratic Presidential Primary, how they appointed Clinton, Obama and Edwards as the three "major candidates" as much as a year ago, gave little (or in the case of Kucinich, virtually no) coverage to the others, and then as much as half a year ago reduced the majors to two and started cutting even Edwards short on commentary, coverage and debate time.

Well, now the race is down to two, my two least favorite, with Gravel just a voice in the wilderness, reduced to nearly complete invisibility. I have spoken against Obama for a variety of reasons including his sources of financial support, his support for foreign intervention and war funding in recent years, his shabby health care reform proposals, pro-business votes on NAFTA and deregulation issues, and the vague and un-specific nature of his admittedly stirring rhetoric. Also, perhaps less commendably, I have spoken against him because I detest seeing a media-created celebrity eclipsing candidates of far more substance.

I am writing however to recommend a vote for Obama in the primary this Tuesday, particularly for my friends in Massachusetts where the race may be close.

I have been led to this by a number of factors.

First, consider the candidates' backgrounds. Clinton, a child of privelige who started as a Republican, has a history including being a member of corporate boards, including Wall-Mart, where she is not reported to have ever spoken out against their vicious anti-union drive. She was wife and partner of a pro-business Democratic President who continued the gravely misguided deregulation started by Reagan, made little progress for programs for the people, supported disastrous pro-business trade policies and failed to take advantage of his historic opportunity to dismantle the cold war budgets, programs and alliances. This contrasts with Obama's history as a community organizer in Chicago and as a progressive state legislator and leader on campaign reform. This contrast gives reason to think that Obama in office would be more open and responsive to pressure from the people.

Second, on the central issue of the Iraq war, Clinton voted for the war, Obama spoke out against it. Clinton refuses to commit to getting all troops out of Iraq; Obama has come around to saying that is what he will do, in the first year. And on the crucial and very telling issue of branding the Iran Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, which may well have set the stage for the next war, Clinton joined the Republicans in voting in favor, while Obama opposed it. Thus we have reason to believe that a Clinton administration will mean more war and intervention than an Obama administration.

Third, the Republicans seem eager to see Clinton nominated - not, as one would assume from her record, because they like her best, but because they already have the minds of a large part of the public poisoned against her and believe they can defeat her more easily. They are probably right.

Finally, Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) and Move-on.org have both called for a vote for Obama, so this is a chance to show that their call means something.

*****************

Beyond the primary, the most important thing is getting organized and able to act together politically and communicate with the public without relying on the corporate media. Two possibilities in Massachusetts: outside the Democratic Party there is the Green Party, and inside there is the PDA. They represent similar programs but different strategies. Both are bringing our issues and views before the public. Both strategies face daunting obstacles. Both strands could come together in a great political realignment such as happened in 1856 and 1860. We need them both. Neither can be blamed for our current predicament.

In Massachusetts, the PDA is supporting Ed O'Riley in his race as an unapologetic progressive for the Democratic nomination for US Senate, against John Kerry. Tune in to this campaign and consider committing. See http://pdamerica.org/articles/campaigns/2008-01-31-09-15-31-campaigns.php