I still think it's going to be Hillary. The Democratic Party never fails to disappoint.

Obama really is the best hope for "change" that America has in the election of 2008. It was "improbable" that he was ever elected to the Illinois Senate, and even more "improbable" that he made it to the U.S. Senate from Illinois. I'm placing my hope in a third helping of "improbable" (possibly even "providential") to put him and his family right into The White House. It's hard to imagine what we could possibly do better than this to give the whole of America an overnight facelift in the eyes of 6 billion people around the world.

Obama must court the superdelegates or he will not win the nomination.

There are 796 superdelegates out of 4,049 total delegates. That's about 25% of the delegates from only 796 citizens.

That compares with the other 3,253 delegates being elected by the other 72 million registered Democrats.

In other words, a superdelegate counts as much as 22,150 registered Democratic primary voters.

It is exactly as if each superdelegate were a normal registered Democrat who is allowed to vote 22,150 times.

In other words, this is a preposterous arrangement.

If there is any competition between two strong candidates, the superdelegates can always unite and swing the nomination to the candidate who is winning fewer of the elected delegates.

That's exactly what is going to happen if Obama does not gain the favor of the superdelegates.

A shameful system.

One fix would be to multiply the total number of delegates by ten, and keep the number of superdelegates the same. That way, a superdelegate will still have weight equal to 2,215 registered Democrats, but the aggregate will not be able to overturn the will of the people.

Remember when Hillary was "inevitable?"

Not anymore.

This will hopefully end the Clinton/Bush dynasty forever.

Now that Barack Obama has survived Super Tuesday, after all the media hype about the inevitability of Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's husband as nominee, we can all look forward to many weeks and months of campaigning on both sides.

Bear in mind that Obama was able to erase many Hillary double-digit leads in a matter of days. If I were Hillary, I would be very worried about how Americans will respond to months of Obama speeches.

Amir
www.meetyourworld.com

We still have a semi-super Tuesday with another chance at delegates but as mirf59 pointed out in a post above: super delegates could and probably will decide a close race. From what I have read of those supposedly in the know say that Clinton has the edge with the super delegates. I don't know how Obama can court them but if he can he had best do so.

Americans have their bread. The primaries are part of the circus entertainments.

And yet this morning all the monopoly media was talking about Hillary being the big winner. Kinda like how they said Iraq was connected to 9/11. Good thing we now have the internet. Bad thing most people get their news from monopoly media.

The role of the superdelegates may be distasteful to some but at least they are in the rules. More distasteful is Senator Clinton's attempts to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates now that they are crucial to her winning. We condemn the Republicans for their philosophy of winning at all costs, but are expected to support a Democrat with the same philosophy (as exemplified by her thinly veiled appeal to racism). We have spent eight years railing at a president who believes that the rules do not apply to him, but are expected to support a Democrat with the same attitude. Senator Clinton has been criticized as being Republican-lite in her policies and apparently is also Republican-lite in her ethics.

I flipped by our "foreign" channel that shows newscasts from around the world this morning and I saw a russian newscaster showing clips of Obama.

Democracy in action can be a much better weapon for winning hearts and minds of people compared to the Bush strategy of hot lead, chemicals, torture, and occupation.

Use of strategic voting used to be all about voting against the Republicans. Now it is about voting against Democrats to insure we never have to consider voting for them.

I sent an angry reply when Clinton sent me an email claiming victory in florida. I'm not a big fan of cheaters.

According to NBC News, when they asked Obama and Clinton for the names of the super delegates that were supporting them, Clinton had a +90 margin. It's not as wide as some have speculated.

Obama's not my choice for President, but he's better than Hillary.

Looking at this thing, though, what makes me think Obama has the edge is that on Super Tuesday (what a stupid phrase) Hillary won fewer but bigger states than Obama, including the two biggest states of all: California and New York. Now what's left are smaller states, which gives Obama a decided edge. So I guess I'm going to predict that Obama will beat Hillary, and probably also whoever the GOP manages to put out there.

Now if I (or anyone else) could only predict what Obama will do when he's elected. Kinda doubt even Nostradamus could do that, though.

So Hillary is still even with Obama, perhaps with some help from Diebolt. (It's amazing how much more accurate exit polls were before 2000! I particularly doubt the Massachusetts results.) Obama has the momentum, and could well win in spite of the Super-Delegates.

If so we need to know that what we are winning by supporting him is not a commitment to peace, but an opening for peace. Obama, like the rest of the surviving candidates (except for Ron Paul and Gravel), is committed to maintaining US military domination of the planet, but he is making some pro-peace statements he can perhaps be held to, and he may be more responsive to pressure from the people.

We need to keep up the "street pressure" for peace now, after the nomination is settled, and on the new President. We need to find new and innovative ways of doing so. Anti-war sentiment is at 70%, but the anti-war movement is nearly invisible from Main St. Some way must be found to draw the millions into action and force media attention.

One crisis we could face soon: if Bush starts a war with Iran, and he could, can we stop Obama from jumping onto the war bandwagon?

keyinside February 6th, 2008 11:49 am

"Remember when Hillary was "inevitable?"

Not anymore.

This will hopefully end the Clinton/Bush dynasty forever."

If it ends with a president named McCain, or Romney, will that be OK with you?

"In other words, a superdelegate counts as much as 22,150 registered Democratic primary voters."

Who knew !! I wish I hadnt made the friggin trek to cast my useless vote ....

I double dare the "superdelegates" to swing the convention to Hillary if Obama has won a majority of the delegates selected by voters. "Count every vote."

would that i had 22,150 votes to work with. but with the one i have, i've decided after much soul-searching to vote for obama in the washington state primary, and do my best to influence others to do likewise.

i've voted nader and done write-ins in previous elections, but it's time to do something that might POSSIBLY result in positive change.

obama as president would be faced with a huge battle, as the beltway establishment would do everything possible to hamstring him and thwart progressive legislation. but i believe he would try. i believe he has this country's best interests at heart, at least to a greater degree than any other viable candidate.

it will take a democratic LANDSLIDE in november to overcome the systematic local- and state-level vote rigging by republicans that gave us two terms of GWB. i sincerely hope obama can cause that landslide.

What an arcane electoral system! Incomprehensible. The lack of any proportional distribution of popular votes to delegates is bizarre and always seems to work to Clinton's advantage. It's like a corrupt machine at work. If Obama wins, his support will have to completely overwhelm the Clinton-bias of the delegate system.

Meanwhile, not much on CNN about this:

Voting advocates allege problems at Los Angeles polls

http://www.sfgate.com/flat/archive/2008/02/05/chronicle/archive/2008/02/05/MNQOUSIIM.html?tsp=1

(02-05) 04:00 PST Los Angeles - --
snip--

"This is definitely a Florida," said Rick Jacobs, who heads the Courage Campaign, the California-based progressive grassroots 527 group whose partners include Common Cause and MoveOn.org.

Jacobs said that his group, which held a conference call with the Obama campaign Tuesday, has moved to mount a legal challenge to the Los Angeles County voting system, charging that confusing procedures in that major urban area could disenfranchise the estimated 776,000 "decline to state" voters there.

I have made too many predictions already.

I am just Glad!

People vote for someone who they feel comfortable with and, yes, they do make horrible choices (for example, George Bush.) Sadly, we seem to be heading in that direction again!

A bit of history we probably all know: Bush proved more likable than the two stiffs who ran against him. Gore and Kerry, aside from showing very little in the way or charisma or warmth, were muzzled by kingpins who didn't want them to come out against the Iraq war and economic policies favoring the have-nots.

Comes 2008, the Dems will probably repeat past mistakes: pick another humorless, charisma-less candidate to run against John McCain, an awful conservative, but a solid, warm guy with a grandfatherly demeanor.

Democrats-- it's time to start going with your gut instead of your heads!

Tweedledum/Tweedledee. Ho-hum.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Obama can atleast project "change" whereas McCain represents "staying the curse." If the Dims run Clinton, expect a McCain victory.

Tweedledum/Tweedledee yes but last time we got stuck with Tweedledumb.

mikec, I agree with you. I haven't voted for a Democrat for president since 1972, having learned not to hold my nose while voting after unwillingly voting for McGovern. But I will vote for Obama and do so without holding my nose. I don't think he's the best of bad, I think he's capable of a major change of direction for out country. And he voted to ban Cluster bombs, unlike Hillary who voted to keep them. Child murderer. It's too bad the public knows so little about these people.

The super delegates are a concern. Composed of past and present party leaders and officials, they make their decisions for a variety of reasons, including repaying favors. Probably, most of the favors have been repaid with the early endorsements. Some are waiting to see how their constituents vote, others are assessing "winnability". I'm sure some are thinking about a candidates' coattails. Very short, in Hillary's case. One super delegate talked about her high negatives, and how it would bring lackluster conservatives to the polls, holding their noses, who otherwise would have stayed home.

I'm disgusted with the Propaganda Ministry which rushed to bray that Hillary won and doubt that they will properly correct that misinformation. I thought that if this primary had been held two weeks later, it would have been a rout because Obama's poll numbers have been on an upward trajectory while Hillary's have been sinking, something the Propaganda Ministry hasn't seen necessary to point out to us. But they have been making a big deal over "moderates going for Hillary and liberals going for Obama". If that's the case, then why are Republicans voting for Obama? Most people believe our country is on the wrong track, and I believe that with him we can get on the right track.

kathyodat

Obama?

Blah, boring, liar, hypocrite, warmonger, hatred and injustice maker, etc.!

Yes, that's what Americans want; they never tire of it.

He's already a war criminal and criminal in terms of other human rights; but, and again, Americans never tire of being and supporting EVIL. It's their unblessed "religion"; it's illustrative of the real "god" that they worship, the "Golden Cow"-worshiping "American" sh*ts; these disgusting idolators.

They're such sick idolators and morons that many of them spend more time worshiping what's between their two legs; for crying out loud.

Well, what do you expect from [mindless] and [soulless] 'dumb animal' people!

Did you ever ask wild animals anything, but while I also specifically mean about ethics? No, eh. Why not? 'Duh', you reply; understandably so, too. Well then, why do you bother trying to communicate to try to provide U.S. 'dumb animal' voters with relevant, important matters to seriously think about before they decide how they'll vote? Well, because it's an effort based on the very remote possibility of maybe being able to help some of these 'dumb animals' to consider all important aspects of political candidates presently running; right (?). And, but, wait a minute; your efforts are futile, the borg have taken over the minds of most "Americans", so your efforts aren't going to be able to achieve any significant success; don't you realise! ... Conclusion, or "moral of the story": "Americans" mostly are just a large herd of disgustingly 'dumb animals'.

Grab yourself some good smoke on election day and head to a nice wilderness park; to hell with the "pre-ordained"-hellbent elections, unless able to vote for Mckinney, Nader, Gravel, or writing in Kucinich's name, or, and lastly, pro-Big Pharma. (so anti-health care for all citizens and residents) Paul, MD.

Many people who voted for Obama said they made their choice in the last week. Wonder how the
California vote would have turned out if they could only have voted yesterday instead of being
able to vote many weeks ago. Hillary thought this was going to be a slam-dunk election, for
Obama, who most of the country had never heard of a few years ago to be even with hillary is
to me the big story. His support is only going to get stronger as the year goes on.

\chop\
Superdelegates are designed to protect front-runners and make sure dark horses don't run away with things.

Superdelegates grow in number as the party gets more successful: They include all Democratic members of Congress, members of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic governors.

They also are the party warhorses and include "all former Democratic presidents, all former Democratic vice presidents, all former Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic minority leaders, as applicable, and all former chairs of the Democratic National Committee."

This means that not only Bill Clinton, but Terry McAuliffe, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, are superdelegates.

And their votes count just as much as the delegates chosen by actual primary voters.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8353_Page2.html

The problem here is that there is such vitriolic hatred of Hillary by so many independents that should she win the Democratic nomination, those folks will flock to McCain's banner and he'll be our next President, so it's imperative that Obama be able to woo those folks to his side in order to win against McCain, who I regard as a dangerous loose cannon.

Obama also needs to be able to count on the youth vote. They need to get up off of their sofas, away from the beer kegs, off of their iPods and cell phones and get out there and VOTE! College students have a lot to lose with a McCain presidency and much to gain with an Obama presidency, and they need to be made to realize how imperative it is for them to get involved now. They're the next generation of the workplace as we Baby Boomers retire and leave our jobs, which is already beginning to happen. Their lives will very much be shaped by whoever wins the White House this year in ways that they need to be made aware. They can't afford to descend into apathy and self indulgence. It's time for them to step up to the plate and become involved.

And as we Baby Boomers enter our senior years, we also need to stay involved and active and not settle for a sedentary life of post-retirement sitting in the proverbial rocking chair waiting to die. We need to regain the enthusiasm we had back in the 60's when we were young and fight for our rights as well as those of our children, grandchildren and descendents. We need to fight like hell for universal health care, not some compromise plan that keeps private insurance in the mix. We must end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home. We must reconstruct our crumbling infrastructure, create new jobs via sustainable and renewable energy, ensure good schools and supported teachers for our children and create the country we know that we can become.

Our time is now. We must heed what I have heard called the "fierce urgency of now." Not four, eight or twelve years from now, but NOW!!!

"Rudyjo February 6th, 2008 2:01 pm

...

His support is only going to get stronger as the year goes on."

RUDYJO IS LIKELY RIGHT, FOR IT'S THE 'DUMB ANIMAL'-"American Way" that he or she speaks of. It of course doesn't make the likelihood at all right; given Obama's already criminal of war and against other human rights, truth, etc. But it's the 'dumb animal'-"American Way", so we should expect that what RudyJo says is likely to happen over the near enough (and far too near) future.

Americans never tire of being hellishly 'dumb animal', so they should die and lose as many family members as possible to crimes of the U.S.A. that these 'dumb animal' "Americans" have participated in diabolically empowering. All who vote for warmongerers, injustice makers, and so on, should have their families used for cannon fodder; it's the fitting consequence for such 'dumb animals' that only [pretend] to be human. They should also enlist and thereby make themselves fully available as cannon fodder for their supported "elites", who cherish all of these [dumb animals]; instead of only making their family members available for this ... cannon fodder.

It'd be a little sad, but would do a whole lot of good for Humanity; far greater good for Humanity.

People worshiping Obama should GROW THE F*CK UP!

"Stiv Whitman February 6th, 2008 2:06 pm

..."

SO, WHAT STIV SAYS IS THAT the superdelegates only or mostly work to reinforce the reining in of hell upon Humanity. HELL!

Seems as if everyone who comes on to talk about last night's race is using the same phrase - they say that it is an exciting time where people have to choose between "two people of integrity and vision." I get suspicious when I hear the same phrase coming out of different mouths.

They were talking about Mulroney the other day and it seems that he too was seen as someone who could bring unity between Liberals and Conservatives.

Hope is good. Believing in someone or something is good. But faith of this intensity and expectations this high you wonder what happens when people crash. Even if the new President performs better than I expect, people are apt to feel cheated because they expected so much more. I wonder if we are creating another generation of youths who are distrustful and apathetic towards politics.

RE: - Obama really is the best hope for "change" that America has in the election of 2008.

Better than Clinton and McCain any way - and that is what we should be measuring him against. Obama is no John Edwards or Paul Wellstone, though. Edwards and Wellstone knew that even when you win, they won't stop fighting you and trying to overturn your victory.

The one change that Obama can deliver is getting COMBAT troops out of Iraq. He still may need to keep a peacekeeping force in there (there is no way he can rule that out).

Speaking of ill thought out wars, there will be a Confidence motion in March about extending the war in Afghanistan. If more MPs vote against it than for it, Canada has another election. Seems that Stephen Harper either wants an election or he is playing chicken with Stephan Dion.

MP=Congressperson

RE: - yes the feminist and the abortion people are voting for hillary BUT that is NOT in their interest cause at the same time the clintons nafta and gatt and their running in illegals will lower the feminists and abortionists wages..

What was wrong with NAFTA is that, instead of protecting workers, it undermines the ability of workers to protect themselves. It also puts corporate rights ahead of the rights of governments to make their own laws.

"Abortionists" are doctors - there is a shortage of doctors in North America right now so I doubt if they have to worry about their wages going down any time soon. That said, there are too many foreign trained doctors driving taxis.

If you want "pro life" then vote Huckabee - the former Governor who congradulated Canada on preserving our national igloo.

Last time I heard someone talk about "feminists" like that, it was in the note Marc Lepine wrote before he committed the Montreal Massacre. The date of the Montreal Massacre, December 6, is now the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. If it wasn't for this act of gendercide Naomi Klein would be shopping and still thumbing her nose up at her family's values.

RE: - Obama's not my choice for President, but he's better than Hillary.

Another former Edwards supporter?

RE: - obama as president would be faced with a huge battle, as the beltway establishment would do everything possible to hamstring him and thwart progressive legislation.

When they did that to Bush, he welcomed it and encouraged it. How much is there from Obama for them to attempt to thwart? Probably more than I think and less than the average Obamite thinks.

RE: - Voting advocates allege problems at Los Angeles polls

Doesn't surprise me. Thanks for the article! Heard something about it on Newsworld last night but it was at the level of suspected problems.

The decline and fall of public courage

The departure of John Edwards — a brief shining, moment in American history all by his handsome, lonesome self — from the U.S. presidential race was a kick in the teeth. Or would have been if I'd had any teeth left after seven years of Bush rule. I am down to my bleeding gums.

At times, Edwards seemed like the last honourable person in U.S. politics. He said sensible things; it shouldn't have required bravery to say them, but it did.

And as much as I dread writing a eulogy upon the death of courage, it must be said. We only occasionally show personal courage, and in Western nations, collectively we show none at all.

http://rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=67234

One fault with obama, he supports the war on drugs.

Mike Corbeil,

I have been enjoying your tremendous insights. Keep up the good work. I'm quite sure enlightened human beings that are living in the full glow of humanity would cherish every word of your commentary.

A Hillary nomination almost guarantees a McCain victory. First, Nader will run if she does, there goes the Progressives...Next, we'll get to relive Whitewater, the definition of "is", the blue dress, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and the host of other follies ad nauseum leading up to the election. The Dems will have once again shot themselves in the foot and snatched a defeat from the jaws of victory...

Ken Mitchell, dont' be so sure about the war on drugs thing. I did some digging and he was actually for decriminalization of marijuana but got lambasted for it in his Senate race and pretty much gave it up. That's not to say he can't be swayed AFTER he gets elected. Baby steps...

buckets of pus, served up by big business.

Mike Corbeil,

Take a chill pill. I don't 'worship' Obama. Just think he is slightly better than Clinton on foreign policy and agree with Zunes:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/04/6836/

On domestic issues, I've worked in education, some years in Oakland. I was impressed by Michelle Obama's speech in L.A. and her opposition to No Child Left Behind. In general, I don't trust Clinton on education issues. That's personal.

But I also don't like the way the Democratic Party Machine stacks the deck against newcomers and outsiders. I cut and pasted that bit from Politico.com on super delegates because I feel their power is undemocratic and archaic. Maybe you misunderstood that I was cutting and pasting, not expressing my opinion?

In any case, I'm a Green Party supporter and I am pulling for McKinney in that race. But I hope Obama takes the Democratic party by surprise.

I don't think the folks who comment here are naive about Obama. Some clearly feel he's a better candidate than Clinton and has a better chance of defeating the Republicans.

It's really not about worship at all, it's just a sort of matter-of-fact pragmatism given the constraints of the candidates left standing.

To those who want the WORST democrat possible, hey, I'm open to that idea, you just need to flush it out for me, because I don't understand your reasoning. To those who think Clinton is the better democratic candidate of the two, I would appreciate someone taking Zunes article to task; please point out where his analysis is wrong.

Thanks!
Peace.

I'm not quite sure I understand Hillary's claim to be the candidate with "presidential experience"....

...If I needed open heart surgery, I'm not going to be satisfied to have the doctors' wife perform the operation.

Kristina40,

The main problem with Hillary versus McCain is not that McCain and the Republicans would win but rather that Republicans cannot lose. Hillary Clinton's voting record indicates that she is a conservative. Raised Republican. Hawkish at every turn. Etc.

There are also strong indications that Obama will become a classic establishmentarian candidate when he gets in. Clinton 42 entered the White House ready to slash the DOD based on the peace dividend of the end of the Cold War. Bush 43 entered the White House claiming to be a uniter, reaching across the aisle, a "compassionate conservative", and flatly against "nation-building."

You have to listen carefully for true signs of what will happen under a Clinton 44 or an Obama 44. In the case of Clinton, throw out the rhetoric and look at her votes in the Senate and look at who is supporting her financially. Viewed this way and forced to guess which Party she belongs to, one would guess she's a moderate Republican. That's what she is.

Listening to Obama talk about protecting our "vital national security interests" in Iraq is a strong indication that he will not challenges the foreign policy paradigm one iota. In other words, continue to use force and violence to increase economic stability and therefore prosperity at home.

At least Obama did not agree to declare the entire national Army of Iran a terrorist organization. So he's not as rabidly hawkish as Hillary.

BUt, anyway, Hillary as nominee means two Republican candidates and Republicans are guaranteed to have an advocate in the White House.

Obama galvanizes the youth vote, Hillary galvanizes the right wing vote. As my son pointed out, only the Democrats could find a way to lose a slam dunk election. So Bill Clinton and Terry McCauliffe each get over 22,000 votes more than each of us. That's democracy for you.

kathyodat

I just spoke with my conservative brother. He predicts that if Obama is the nominee, we will see the nastiest smear campaign of all time, attacking Obama on account of his admitted cocaine use, his race, and whatever "Muslim" ties he may have, or be rumored to have had, in his history.

He believes it will be ugly, but he believes it will do enough damage to keep him out of the White House.

Thoughts?

I've come to realize over the years that the DLC will always choose the most conservative candidate. It's a fail-safe built into the corporate dictatoraship to prevent real change. Clinton, like Kerry and Gore before him is unispiring at best. Moreso, she carries a great deal of baggage and breeds animosity. A vote for Clinton is, in essence, a vote for McCain.

At least with McCain, there is no illusion. He is the real repug, why settle for an immitation.

As for Obama, I think he can handle whatever the repugs toss his way because he rpojects the illusion of change as opposed to "staying the curse" and after 8 disasterous and bloody years Americans are ready for something different. Of course the selection may (and probably will) still be stolen.

Interesting how the corporate owned media is proclaiming Clinton with more delegates. Why are we having a primary season, corporations have already decided to run two Republicans against each other: one disguised as a Dem.

Vote Nader 2008!

I want to preface my statement by saying that I think this is the most exciting election campaign, both Democrats and Republicans, that I have ever seen in the last 50 years. I believe that what we are seeing is the democratic process at its best. This is what the Founding Fathers envisioned with the two system when this country was in its infancy.
Now to my main train of thought, I am a Barack Obama follower because he is the person that can help heal this sick country. America is a very ill patient with a prognosis of only getting worse if radical surgery is not performed soon. The patient America suffers from many deadly diseases such as racism, militarism, massive greed, staggering debt, the lack of foresight, electing leaders who are dummies and intellectual midgets, and using its military might to "strong-arm and bully" smaller/weaker nations. The solution is surgery at the top with Dr. Obama leading the nation but we all know how hard it is to get the patient to consent to take the medicine without first having to sugar coat it!
Once again,"Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come" and the only constant in the universe is change. It is the only thing that you can set your clock by - change. Barack Obama is the physical manifestation of that change and his campaign is the tip of the spear of the progressive movement. Clinton represents the liberal wing of the establishment, whereas, Obama is the face of a movement and an extention of the civil/human rights movement that is moving America toward a more perfect union and making real the meaning of democracy.

Bejugo,

I don't think so. It's about the war. McCain is too close to the war. Hillary is too close to the war. Obama appears to be with the public on the war, even though in the debates he said some things that indicate he may continue the current course at least in the short term.

I think an end to the war is what we're looking for from the President. Hillary is not credible in this respect, and obviously McCain is not interested in anything other than some nebulous "victory."

Since it is the Iraqi people that are fighting us, I can only guess that victory would mean killing all Iraqis. What other victory is there? These people are not going to submit to our control any more than we would submit if China attacked here.

mirf, I completely agree, Hillary is Bush in a skirt so far as I'm concerned. She's an avid globalist and of course was for NAFTA before she decided it needs a "time out" now that it's proven to be the disaster any thinking person knew it would become.

The superdelegates make the Democratic Party less democratic than the Republicans are. Hillary will never change this. It was dreamt up by the DLC(the cancer on the party) to ensure they were in control. Barack, with only one foot in the DLC, might view elimination of this practice as part of his mandate for change.

hillary is a little too mannish for my taste, but calling her a husband is a little unfair to her natural smile and body language during the debates, bushwickamir!! nevertheless, obama is the dream of underdogs and the best hope for unusual politics still in the race. this article is the best news of the day for this guatemalan, which goes to show the long shadows of US presence worldwide!!

mirf, I agree also. Especially like your pointing out the definition of: "victory" as meaning the death of Iraq and its citizens.

It irks me to no end when McCain and others persist in using the meaningless phrase: "winning the war". First of all there is no war...it is an occupation of a country that never attacked us. In the current context winning only means killing as many Iraqi people as possible; causing mass exodus of all Iraqi citizens with a dime to spare for the trip (currently at an unbelievable 4 million!!!), and destroying Iraqi infrastructure for years.... or possibly getting them to sign over those oil rights ?.

I cry for the Iraqi people and their families and homes that are no more. I cry for the ignorance & stupidity that abound around the world. I cry for my country that now so blatantly lies, spies and tortures.

I hope that Obama can pull us out of our downward spiral...but it will depend upon who his economic and foreign policy advisors are. Hillary won't do it because her advisors are the old guard that paved the path to our hell.

Vaudree, thanks for that great article on the death of courage.