If you listen to the voices of the of the people, what they are hearing from Obama is...I'm an African American, semi republican... What you should be listing for is some one who says, I'm an American. When Obama frist came on the scene he was causious to reveal himself as an African American, but the black activist votes were just to easy, to convienent to pass up, also hoping to draw other racial votes to his side by making this stand... when his wife spoke the other day, it was also quite evident that there intrests to gether are not truley equivalently American. Raceisim will become even a greater division among the nations people, if he is elected. I am hoping for the day when the black people realize that they are black, and stop trying to be or wanting to be white, and realize that we all have the same needs and wants inside. That goes for all races, including the white surpremist. I was, and I still am, looking and hoping for a real change for us all, when a candidate will stand up and announce this....I am an American, running for the office of president of the Uninted States of Amirica. Be he Black, white, yellow, red, or neon. And when we look at him or her all we see is an American, The only one on the ballot that shows these qualitys virtues is Hillary Clinton.. think before you sell America short......

We'll see if you are correct, after the final three states vote.

I preferred Kucinich, then Edwards, and now Obama, though I can only hope he is more progressive than his right-of-center economic advisors.

Hillary never did have much chance to win, starting with such high negatives among the general electorate, and now with the extent to which her campaign has alienated progressives and African-Americans, her chances are nil.

If Hillary had divorced Bill in 2001 after assuming her Senate seat, and taken progressive positions, and fought the administration, she had a chance to become an incredibly formidable candidate, uniting the left, racial minorities, and women's groups in a campaign to heal the US and the world. But she did not have the courage. She took the coward's way, following the DLC and triangulating her way through, and depending on her husband and his connections, and now she is in one horrible mess.

She made her bed. And she continues to lie in it.

Con men are super great talkers. Is Obama a true statesman, ___ or a super con artist?

Wemon buy cooking machines they see on TV shows, that you "set it and forget it". That's what we did with the one Evie bought. That Popo guy is a great TALKER.

You boys and girls, old farts and gals, better hope Obama is a true statesman if he's our next president. You really should very carefully examine what Obama has voted for and NOT voted for, and what he has said before he was running for the presidency and who his friends are, before you jump on the band wagon like Pinnochio did. ___ Be careful, be careful.

Women are a "tough sell" for Obama? Not according to the stats; and not for this woman.

I am a 55 yr old woman and in regard to Hillary I think a lot of women have the same syndrome that many blacks had during the OJ Simpson trial. It doesn't matter what Hillary is about, she is a woman, she has put up with a lot of crap from men, we can relate to that and are routing for her. Not to stereotype, but many of the sensibilites that I value in most women I find more in Obama than Hillary.

Well, maybe not, huh?
For those who claim the policy differences are inconsequential---what does matter is the manner in which the Clintons have administrated their campaign of dirty tricks and unethical, divisive--even racist tactics. Now apparently they are covertly sending warnings out to Jews in Maryland questioning Obama's allegiances to Israel and his real Muslim identity.

For that alone the Clintons should be voted down just to send the message.

Published on Sunday, February 10, 2008 by the Washington Post
Women a Tougher Sell for Obama
by Shailagh Murray / Perry Bacon Jr
This retired Rgistered Nurse is not one of the women he has to sell. He is the first ray of Hope I have felt since the Supreme Court gave the election to George Bush.
If he is willing to fight as hard as he is for this Country and what it needs to do to mend itself and the Constitution then I am willing to fight with him.

Andrewsac,
It's not a popularity contest. I don't think anyone is faulting Hillary for not being nice enough. In fact, I think most democrats have been waiting a long time for her to step up to the plate. The problem is, once she finally stepped up she swung out. It's her own lies, waffling, bad sportmanship and stubborn insistence on bad policy that have painted her in a new light. And it never was about her husband's policies. She can't take credit for those, and she can't take blame. She's a big girl. She should be able to do this on Hillary Clinton's qualities, not on Bill's. And she just isn't.
As for entitlements, they are not a uniquely democratic phenomenon. George Bush is the godfather of corporate welfare, which is a much larger and more insidious form of entitlement than all the charitable entitlements put together.
Obama is no cult leader. Those of us who support him recognize that we will have a lot of work to do in the years ahead, regardless of the outcome of this election. It's just that we see him as a more helpful partner in that work than Hillary.

David, does signing that petition mean we agree that the super delegates can choose the candidate? There are almost 800 of them so even if Obama has a considerable lead in the primaries and caucuses, the super delegates, party leaders all, could give it to Clinton. I'm not agreeing to that. If it specified that the super delegates would support the voters' intent, I would sign. But then why have super delegates? They are here because the Democratic party thinks the voters are incompetent to choose a candidate.

Andrewsac, you can hold your nose to vote. I don't do that. Tried it once 36 years ago but that was enough.

If you think life was a bowl of cherries with the Clintons, you weren't paying attention, or were fortunate to be in the upper 20 percentile of wage earners. Bill Clinton chose to sign bills that deregulated banking and telecommunications, ultimately leading to disastrous consequences for the economy and democracy, and NAFTA which has seriously eroded the middle class. His welfare "reform" - which I suspect you approve of, pitched single mothers into low wage dead end jobs leaving them unable to pay for health care, child care and food at the same time. It didn't change the poverty rate, but since then it increased the number of children in dire poverty. Thanks, Bill.

Hillary Clinton wants to pass a mandatory insurance plan that would garnish wages; Obama says it's not fair to place that burden on people who can't afford it. Clinton excoriated Obama for saying he would talk with our enemies. I guess she thinks we should shoot first.

Harry Truman said you can take their money but that doesn't mean you have to reward them when you get elected. I believe that unlike Clinton, Obama is on our side in this class war. He can't talk about a class war, but I can. And it's being waged by the wealthy class. We need to start fighting back.

kathyodat

There is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance on a secret backroom deal.

Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.

Petition http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html

God, this IS a cult! Nice to see that Obama is all good and Clinton is all bad. Yeah, the 90's were terrible - surpluses, no wars draining our lifeblood away, no Katrina-inspired death at the hands of our own government, no debt to a bunch of commies that can't wait to lead us around by the nuts - what a hellhole. Can't imagine why we would want to return to all that prosperity and competence. Terrible, terrible. So much easier to do the dirty work of the Repubs for them, eating our own.
Save your sunshine and happy talk for the other youngsters who think that Obama can do no wrong. I've met Clinton. She's not the enemy, and she is not bitter and hateful. Nice to see that all of you are buying into the cartoon that the right has spoon-fed us. The Clintons are not the devils, guys. They just are not as liberal as all of you. Got news for you, Obama will get into office and have to do the same awful things that Clinton will have to do to get us out of this mess. Where will all your pretty words be then? Or will you just blindly back him, no matter what he does? He'll have to hurt folks too, guys. Recession hurts those at the bottom first and for the longest time. No magic bullets are coming, and no happy dust either. Pain is on the horizon, and some of it is created by us, people. We spend more than we make, and save zip. We refinance our homes like they are banks, and take out subprimes only to whine about the terms later. One card is Full? Take out another! Obama can't fix it (or us), and he can't MAKE people in Washington do what he wants just because he is the Pres. He may spend the next four years fighting non-stop like the Clinton's did for so much of their administration. Don't remember that? Yeah, it was all them, I'm sure. Because they were so much lower than Bush and his ilk. You just may find that you are the ones eating crow when your guy doesn't deliver the liberal feast you are sure is coming our way. There is no feast - the cubbard is bare. The next pres will spend the first two years fixing this mess, and getting crucified for it.
If you think that the Clinton's are evil to Obama, then you haven't looked across the aisle lately. Wait until he is the nominee. They'll swift-boat him worse than Kerry. They turned a war hero into a traitor, for crist's sake. You expect a clean fight now? Grow up. Obama whines like no one I have ever seen. You'd think that Hillary came out on the stage with a Hood on and burned a cross. He can't stand even the slightest criticism, and is condecending and snotty in every debate. Must be a Harvard thing. The line where he told one of the most hated women in recent memory (undeserved, in my opinion. After all, she didn't bake or divorce her husband - god, what a bitch) that she "wasn't that bad", turned me off completely. Hey genius, the reason YOUR wife has the free pass she has is that she had to step over the dead body of Hillary's tenure as First Lady to get where she is. Mrs. Obama didn't knock down that door. She walked through the one the Repubs threw Hillary through. Michells acts like it was her alone. No, you stand on others that made this journey easier for you. You'd think there would be just a little bit of respect. Instead, we get sermonizing about how bad Hillary is on the campaign trail, and how much better they (did you get that, they. As in, a co-presidency too. Last time I looked Michelle was a lawyer, just like Hillary is. Hmmm, I see a pattern...). If that is not a sense of entitlement, I don't know what is.
Gee, aren't fellow Dems the least of our problems? I mean, if Repubs can turn a triple-amputee into Osama Bin Laden, what are they going to do to Obama? Everyone here acts like we will pick our candidate, and the other side will just run screaming into the hills. We surrender, we surrender! Riiiight.
God, are all of you this demanding to everyone you meet? They have to be perfect to make the grade? That is a sure trip to Loserville in November. How nice to be on a train with all you executioners. It will save us so much time if we provide the bullet-ridden victim ourselves so that the Repubs can finish our nominee off when we get done in Denver. After all, they couldn't have done it last time without us.
You may have to hold your nose and vote for Clinton after all. It is a long race, and we are not over yet. I will also have to do the same if it is Obama. I will have to vote and hope for the best. Just like all of you. But if you start demonizing Clinton now, you are no better than the crazy folks who got us here. After all, Gore wasn't good enough for us, and neither was Kerry. How nice we have been to be such righteous losers. It saves so much time. It also saves us the trouble of holding the next pres accountable. He won't be from our side, if the boards are any indication. He also won't have any reason to listen to us. Kind of like the last eight years. Oh goodie. Four more years of being right, and still being powerless. Sounds as fun as the last eight years.
Remember, corporations only have the power we give them. Stop buying Sh*t, and putting poison in your bodies via the Happy Meal. I'm sure we can get their attention. After all, all these folks in Washington wouldn't have all our money if we didn't happily turn it over at every Walmart, Target and Wendy's we came across. You want corps to stop buying polititians? Cut off the money, instead of waiting for a Messiah. The hand of god is YOUR hand. If the invisible hand of the free market is touching you inapropriately, by all means, STOP GOING INTO THE HOUSE! The corps don't come to you, you are going to them. There are no victims in this life, only volunteers. You'd think that someone like Obama and his well-educated supporters would have come across that quote by now, and taken it to heart. Instead, it is the big, bad corp that is hurting us, and not our insistence that everything we want is ours by birthright. Oh, and can I have a fry - extra large - with that sense of entitlement? That is something that Obama and his supporters seem to share.

Yes, Hillary is more solid. If you like minimum wage jobs without benefits, outsourcing to China and unfair competition against local businesses, Hillary's service on Wal-Mart's board should please you. If you like the Iraq war, she's your candidate. If you like divisive politics, triangulation, hardball and partisan bickering, she'll make sure it happens. If you're happy about health care today, you can thank her previous efforts for the results.

Recently someone posted that Obama had written hundreds of pieces of legislation as opposed to a very few for Hillary. I thought that if that were true, it would be important to know. Apparently it's not, though, if this piece from July from Media Matters for America is accurate... http://mediamatters.org/items/200707120006

"Since Clinton took office in 2001, she has sponsored two bills that have become law and co-sponsored 49 bills that have become law, according to the THOMAS database. According to the same database, Obama, who took office in 2005, has sponsored one bill that has become law and co-sponsored 13 bills that have become law."

You can check it out yourself at the Library of Congress database:
http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html.

It's a tougher sell, because MOST women are lots smarter than men. They learn at a young age how to detect male B/S.

Change!!!

Hope!!!

Jingo!!!

No matter how all of this turns out, it's nice to see so many people taking an interest in
politics again. The more informed the population is, the less the Government will get away with
the crimes they have been committing.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but if HRC had not authorized the biggest mistake the US gov't has made in my lifetime, she would probably have the nomination all but won.

Thank you Nancy Pace. I am looking forward to reading more of your views.

BeForKids wrote at 12:41 pm:

"Although like Edwards, (Obama) is a populist, he cannot run as one or his campaign funds will dry up instantly - get real, you can't run without it - and the media will disappear him. So he ends up appearing "fluffy" which he isn't at all."

Other posters have asserted that Clinton is dishonest, but Obama is honest. But if BeForKids is right, Obama is appearing fluffy so that he can deliberately deceive the media, so that he can be elected and then can do something totally different from what he is saying now.

I can't believe what a circus this all is. Why would I ever want to vote for someone based on the hope that in the future, he/she will do something totally different from what he/she is saying now?

The funny thing is that although I don't agree with most of his views, I think the really honest person left in the race is Mike Huckabee. What a fine state of affairs all this is....

Many of my women friends of a certain age want so much to see Hillary Clinton elected President that they refuse to seriously consider Barack Obama. They're curious about him, to be sure. No one could overlook all the campaign excitement or miss seeing at least a few of his ads. But they would never be so disloyal as to actually listen to one of Barack's speeches or to check out his campaign website for more details. They all tell me quite frankly that they're already very happy just to have the chance to nominate someone who looks a lot like them, and will I please just leave it at that?

It's true that most of us have come to admire Hillary's many achievements, and her dignity in what many of us have experienced as a very rough-and-tumble man's world. We identify with her tragic husband-troubles, and respect her commitment to her marriage. We celebrate her moxie when men have dismissed her contributions and disrespected her ambitions. We've waited breathlessly our whole lives for this chance to elect a smart, capable woman President of the United States, and we know what a Clinton Presidency could mean to our daughters and granddaughters. As years have passed, we've smiled with Hillary because we know what she knows, that doing well is the best revenge.

What we are not doing, however, is asking the right question, the question we as patriots, citizens, and voters are duty-bound to ask: Which candidate would make the best President?

However generously we acknowledge Hillary's many abilities and achievements, we should thoughtfully consider Barack's as well, if only because our long experience informs us that the next President must be armed with unusually fine and rare combinations of strengths and abilities to successfully navigate the dangerous shoals ahead.

Of course both Hillary and Barack are well-informed about the state of the world. But Barack is truly gifted in human relations—in people skills, diplomacy, and communication. He empathizes uniquely with difference and diversity—with those having different agendas, cultures, perspectives, memories, and understandings than his own. Our next President must be brilliant, but also extraordinarily able to relate to disparate viewpoints and interests in order to arrive at the inclusive solutions which alone can resolve complex global problems.

Of course Hillary and Barack are both experienced public servants. Hillary's seven years, and Barack's eleven, of public accountability in elected office are just the beginning. Hillary's many years as an attorney and as first lady gave her just as much opportunity for growth as did Barack's years of community organizing, his work as a civil rights attorney, and his professorship in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Hillary's whole life has prepared her to be a tough political in-fighter, capable of ramming through incremental changes in the face of almost insurmountable opposition. Barack, on the other hand, disarms both potential and perceived adversaries through his non-polarizing approaches to problem-solving. He seeks and finds common ground and mutual goals, disagrees agreeably, and steadily builds both consensus and support through hard work and clear, eloquent, impassioned communications.

Of course both Hillary and Barack have achieved great things; they wouldn't be where they are today if they hadn't. But Obama's years of greatest productivity and achievement are arguably still ahead of him, while Hillary seems thrilled with the chance to put the finishing touches on a once-aggressive 60's-era agenda. She has earned all her recognition and vindication, but while she's enjoying it, Barack has rocketed with his generation and the next into a tomorrow Hillary can't visit even in her dreams.

Both Hillary and Barack are tested and tenacious campaigners and fearless competitors. Hillary has fifteen years of Washington experience on Barack, whose present stature derives mostly from hard work, brilliant planning and organizing, and charismatic leadership born of strong character, values, empathy, and hope. Barack has risen to every challenge in his path, and he has always emerged ever-closer to a national mandate for his leadership.

In their very differently-conducted campaigns, Hillary and Barack have given us new insight into their personalities and character. But Barack has also given those of us who've followed his trajectory a tantalizing taste of what it would be like to have a strong, candid, universally-respected, and visionary President, on whom we could rely for trustworthy, respectful leadership, for inspiration, and example.

Hillary is burdened with our collective memory of past ugly campaigns and embarrassing setbacks. Unfortunately, she is a somewhat polarizing figure, distrusted and disliked still by too many voters. Barack, too, has fought difficult campaigns—beginning in Illinois, a state famous for its tough political climate—and has emerged squeaky-clean and greatly loved, consistently elected in landslides by a constituency mirroring the wide range of backgrounds, interests, ages, genders and ethnicities found across America.

Ever since a skinny guy with a funny name no one could remember took on the formidably-organized and well-heeled campaign of internationally-recognized Hillary, Americans who have read his books and listened to him speak about his plans for America started to write their own hopes and dreams upon the fresh new slate which is Barack Obama.

If nothing else, we've learned from our beloved civil rights and feminist leaders of the past that we cannot make good decisions about the best person for any job by first considering the color of their skin, their race, or their gender. We must rather carefully weigh the content of their character, carefully comparing their abilities for the job at hand.

In this time of America's greatest challenges and possibilities, we ought to take seriously our responsibility for nominating the Democratic candidate most likely to unite us in creating a future we'll be proud to leave our grandchildren.

(Nancy Pace blogs on breaking news at the intersection of politics, peace, culture and spirituality at www.epharmony.com.)

Ok, how about my mom who voted for Reagan who actually, for the first time in her life, went down to vote for Hillary? Stories are stories, and experience.....teaches us.

Younger women see Obama as a stud with class, although you can expect them to deny it, even to themselves.

These older women are the ones from the time of women's liberation. They are dying to see a woman president. They don,t much care if she is good or bad. They will even convince themselves that she is good , just to have a woman president. Younger women don't feel unliberated and didn't have to fight, so they are more likely to ignore gender.

I'd like to add my traditional conservative mother who never votes democrat is so excited about voting for Obama. That tells you something. She also said she would vote for him over McCain but would not vote for Hillary over McCain. There are alot of people out there like my mother.

I call BULLSHIT! Most women here in DC that I know are voting Obama. I'm a woman by the way.

It would be sexist of me to vote for Hillary just because of her gender when you think about it. I believe people should be judged based on the content of their character not thier gender or skin color.

I'd love to see a woman president, this country needs one, however, that woman must be extrodinary and someone I can be proud of. Hillary is not that woman. Just say no to the gender spin on the media with her.

The Clean Air Act was enacted in the early 1970s, a response to the growing problem of air pollution.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/poll-a30.shtml

WSWS : News & Analysis : North America

Bush guts pollution controls on energy industry
By Joseph Kay

My bad, thanks Stiv Whitman February 10th, 2008 2:53 pm

RuthK, I understand your fear. But why don't you check out the above youtube video from the former president, Lorna Howard, of Chicago NOW? She has switched her endorsement from Clinton to Obama because Clinton has been accusing Obama of being weak on reproductive rights in the Iowa and New Hampshire races. In the video Lorna Howard said she has worked with Obama in Chicago and he has been 100% for reproductive rights and she wants to support an honest candidate over a dishonest one. The point is that Clinton resorts to dirty fighting and can't be trusted. I want a candidate I can trust. That has always been a criteria for me. How can we trust anything she tells us? As far as I am concerned she will do what Bill Clinton did, tell us one thing and then in office turn around and betray us. Bill Clinton started the destruction of the middle class and Hillary would finish it.

Yes, John McCain is scary, but the reality is that Hillary Clinton is too, it's just that most people don't realize it. I'm so sick of being prescient. My friends say "I wish you would be wrong sometimes". I say, "I wish people would listen to me sometimes". But I understand people need to get hit over the head until they learn their lesson, and I can only stand back and watch. At least I'm not alone. There are a number of people on this site who get it. Some of them don't trust Obama. I don't trust people I don't know, and I acknowledge that I may be wrong, but I have a feeling he is on our side and I want to take a chance. Certainly Lorna Howard thinks so, and it's good to hear from someone who has worked with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

Thank you my2sense for posting that link.

kathyodat

Riverman,
Not for nothing, but if I were you....I wouldn't be so quick to say that people without enough intellect should not be allowed to vote.

Riverman,
You raise some good questions. I can't speak for Lorna, but I am not associated with NOW, and never have been, precisely for the reasons you mention. I am a feminist, not a feminazi. Feminism is about inclusion of all marginalized groups--which is pretty much all people--not about exclusion.
For instance, I am personally anti-abortion, but I believe in the individual's right to choose, so I am politically pro-choice. (Right wingers call that pro-abortion, but I think I can safely say no one is ever literally pro-abortion.) I am also against the ERA, because I consider women to already be provided equal rights under the law--although the law may not always be applied as it should. To establish a "separate but equal" special concession to prove that I deserve equal rights even though I am a woman is, to me, an insult.
I am also a believer in Jesus, but I will not declare a membership in any particular religion until someone can tell me which one Jesus belongs to. I suspect he and Abraham, Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucious, Mohammed and many other religious icons belong to the same one.

I guess I don't fit the boxes some people think I belong in.
That's why I back Obama. I trust his integrity. And he gives me room to breath, to think for myself, and to include others who are not like me in the same group with me--regardless of our differences, we are one nation--e pluribus unum.

If garnish my wages for health insurance, work legitimately I won't. Under the table droves of people will work. So, vote for Clinton I shall not.

I am another older woman who supports Obama. However, I will vote for Hillary if she is nominated.

I am old enough to remember the discrimination against women that was so prevalent in years past and seems to be gaining ground today. McCain has promised conservatives that if he is elected he will appoint "activist" judges. We have already enough of those. I am terrified of another Republican president will do.

"rc" wrote:

If the year were 1984 and you had to choose between the "experienced" Larry Bird and the talented "rookie" Michael Jordan, who would you choose to help your team for the next decade or so? I think Obama is to politics what Jordan was to basketball.

At least MJ had an NCAA championship ring on his hand - BHO has a couple of wins in the IL leg.(shall we compare them to AAAA high school competition?) & and an exihibition win over Alan Keyes. A Globetrotter vs. Washington General game would have been more in doubt.

Perhaps we'll see Obama's run at Presidential politics to be more akin to MJ's run at major league baseball?

If this link will open you will see the president of NY NOW, who is the past president of Illinois NOW, withdraw her support of Clinton to back Obama. It's all about his honesty.
I am a grandmother for Obama. I am also a feminist, with two college degrees in Women's Studies. I believe that women who vote for Clinton simply because she is a woman are sexist themselves. The feminist ideal is to evaluate a person's ability regardless of their gender. In feminist jargon, Hillary is a "gatekeeper." She is a token of progress in the women's movement, and as such she has a vested interest in keeping other women out of the roles of power.
Check this link to see what I am talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

Tailcap wrote: "Bush signed a give-away to polluters called the "Clean Air Act"." Wrong. You got tricked Tailcap: It was called the Clear Skies Act: http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/

"I think they're both very bright. But she's more solid. I think he's fluffy."

So Hillary is 'solid' ?? Solidly in favour of american aggression, solidly in favor of corporations, solidly in favor of war, solidly in favor of divisive politics, solidly against the working class and solidly in favor of the Clintons. She is essentially Cheney Lite and yet american women will willingly ignore everything and still vote for her because she is a woman.

Its a reflection of this society that even the poorest of third world nations can elect a woman to office but americans have been incapable of doing so and american women feel compelled to elect a woman who is in every sense a man !!

Peter Sirois: I agree with you. As someone who grew up with a father who was a member of the
Socialist Labor party for over 50 years, to me socialism is not a dirty word. Most problems
in the U.S. have their roots in the abuses of Capitalism. I have never voted for anyone in a
presidential election who has won. My last two votes went to Nader, and if he runs again and
the choice is McCain- Clinton, I will vote for him again. There is something about Obama that
tells me to give him a Chance. He may end up like all the rest of them, we'll see.

simple morality obliges us to choose the candidate who is our best chance of stopping the war.

Here's an article for those who don't believe the presidency matters... Polls show Obama beats McCain, but Hillary doesn't. Does it matter? I've argued that Obama is better than Hillary based on Zunes analysis. Additionally, he fares better in the election match-up with McCain according to polls. Nevertheless, I also favor 3rd party efforts. I hope McKinney gets the GP nomination and does well. But everyone needs to ponder what a McCain presidency means. Chew on this.

--
Does The Brownshirt Party Have Aces Up Its Sleeve?
By Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19308.htm

"...In a McCain Regime, Cheney will be back in office with another stint as Secretary of War. Norman "Bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran" Podhoretz will be Undersecretary for Nuclear War with General John "Nuke them" Shalikashvili as his deputy. Rudy Giuliani will be the Minister of Interior in charge of Halliburton's detention centers into which will be herded all critics of war and the police state. billy kristol will be chief White House spokesliar.

The whole gang will be back--Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmster, Feith, Libby, Bolton. America will have a second chance to bomb the world into submission...."

---

Imagine Dick Cheney's boot in our faces for the indefinite future...

Rudyjo,
I guess I should have expounded a bit. No matter who won the super bowl and no matter who wins the election, the same damn corporations and power brokers will be calling the shots. The war will end ONLY when the capitalist bastards say it will. Conversly, the war will go on as long as the same capitalist bastards want it to. The average person in this country hasn't had a say since the early 1950's. The so-called freedom which our soldiers kill and die for is an illusion.

kathyodat
Thanks. That is an impressive list as an Illinois state senator that needs closer scrutiny. The devil is in the details. Bush signed a give-away to polluters called the "Clean Air Act". He also signed the "Patriot Act" restricting civil rights. As a teacher I am against something that sounds great called the "No Child Left Behind Act" which does not provide enough money for the states to pay for all the mandates.

A list of bills that fall under certain headings is what you have provided. I thank you for it and realize it is my duty not anyone else to examine Sen. Obama's record as a senator to see what he's done that would merit him being president. I am not convinced, but that's my problem. I am not aware of anything monumental that he's done but will explore more.

I remember when Chelsea got sick at school in 1993 she called her daddy the president because her mommy was busy.

kathyodat

h buchman, Hillary's plan is mandatory, with garnished wages to pay for it. Obama clearly stated it is not fair to burden workers with mandatory health care costs when people are barely making ends meet. Unlike her, he understands many Americans are financially struggling.

Obama voted to ban cluster bombs, Hillary voted against the ban.

I'm including a partial list of his work as an Illinois state Senator. It shows whose side he's on and that he's a workhorse. During the eight years in the Illinois state Senate he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

He authored a bill to videotape all police interrogations and confessions in homicide cases. He persuaded unwilling police and district attorneys to come on board, pushed it through a resistant legislature and convinced a reluctant governor to sign it. That's who I want for president.

kathyodat

Obama and Hillary have a lot to promise before either induces many to vote for them . . .

Their 'Afforable Mandatory Health Care' for one;
people can barely afford to eat . . . much less be forced to pay for health care . . . and 'Mandatory' ? Does that mean we lose our homes if we can't afford to pay? This crap . . . and it is CRAP . . . is a major step
backwards.

But if neither will support and take steps to impeach Bush-Cheney and hold them accountable in a court of law for crimes against America, its citizens, and humanity in general . . . they are, in effect, refusing to uphold the US Constituion . . . and we don't need that sort
to govern anything.

Dems are fooling themselves if they think the vast majority is buying, or will buy, their
obvious corporate stances . . . both sound and act like old time politicians that nobody dare trust.

Peter: Both democratic runners say they will start pulling troops out within 6 months,whether
that happens is something else. Compare that to McCain who says he doesn't care if we're in this
war for another 100 years. There is a little bit of a difference here, much more so between
McCain and Obama.

Okay here starts a long thread of Dweedldistic debates about candidates whose differences are monumentally small. They are actually very close on most issues and they are markedly similar in their voting records.

It is a testament to spin-doctoring that people actually buy into the notion that there is some kind of astronomical difference between the two pro-status quo, pro-war, pro-big business candidates that are the best money can buy.

Challenge: List the humongous, gargantuan, titan, mammoth, whopping, mighty, enormous, larger-than-life, immense, jumbo and giant differences, not based on rhetoric but actually based on their records.

gimmesometruth, I swear, people walk around with their eyes closed. No wonder we are being driven off a cliff. They don't see it in front of them.

BTW, Hillary not only supports torture, she also supports cluster bombs. She voted to strip an amendment off a defense bill that would have banned cluster bombs. I'm still trying to figure out why. Unlike Bush, I'm sure she gets no kick out of children's faces getting blown up, but obviously she saw some advantage to refusing to ban cluster bombs.

kathyodat

Dear GG Murray:

Exactly what has Hillary Clinton done in the US Senate that constitutes a "good job?" Her Senate experience is often cited as part of her ability to "hit the ground running."

I was a resident of Buffalo, NY for two years (2004-06) of her first term. During that time, the Delphi Corp in the US (not globally) declared a false bankruptcy and destroyed thousands of good manufacturing jobs and ancillary jobs in the area. Clinton did little except to cry crocodile tears and promised to bring business/labor/community groups together to "help" those who lost their jobs. That never happened.

This is the same Clinton who promised to bring hundreds of thousands of jobs to Upstate and Western New York when she ran the first time. It was a false and stupid promise to be sure, but she did not even make an honest attempt to fight for the dwindling jobs that were there.

In fact, Clinton was basically a Senator for Manhattan and Wall St. She ignored the poverty of the outer boroughs and the general economic devastation that wracks most of the rest of the state while sucking up millions in campaign contributions from Wall St and pro-Israel/AIPAC backers.

In a March '07 New York Times story, she said that the US would need to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely because of undefined US interests, Israel and oil. You can look that one up. She sits on the Senate Armed Services committee and has consistently supported bloated military budgets, Star Wars, etc.

Buffalo is a wonderful town in long-term economic distress. On an almost daily basis, I would encounter poor people, especially single moms, whose lives were made even worse after the Clintons ended "welfare as we know it," and Al Gore, under Bill Clinton's instructions "re-engineered" the federal workforce by cutting 10% of federal jobs and replacing them with high-priced, low-quality outsourced corporations.

Another myth about Clinton is her so-called electabilty. When she ran again for Senate in 2006, she faced a primary challenge from Jonathan Tasini, a former president of the National Writers Union. Despite being overwhelmed by Clinton's millions spent on the primary, Tasini -- a son of Holacaust survivors who are Israeli citizens -- achieved double digits against Clinton, in an underfunded campaign which saw him literally riding his bike to campaign in Upstate New York.

Few of the presidential opponents of Clinton have achieved Tasini's numbers against her. He was refused entrance to the Democratic State Convention in Buffalo. He ran on a platform that called for imediate withdrawl from Iraq, Single Payer National Health Insurance by expanding Medicare to all, a minimum wage that is a living wage, a two-state solution to Israel's occupation of Palestine, and other progressive positions. People should look at those numbers if they truly want a Democrat in the White House.

In any case, while Hillary Clinton is smart, she has never been a good Senator for the people of New York or the citizens of the US. Nor is she tough, brave and to be admired. And as we see from the post above, she even triangulates over torture -- as she does about first-strike use of nuclear weapons and pre-emptive invasions of sovereign nations.

It's great to see your support for Obama, but please, when speaking of Clinton, take a good look at her record. If she and the DLC are able to manipulate the Super Delegate vote and get the Michigan and Florida votes back into play, she may be able to steal the nomination.

Thanks,

tj

Thank You so Much for Another White Grandma Feedback On Obama.. We need More of you to stand up and Voice our Feedback... I am also a Peace activist as well. I am thinking of the Future of My Grandchildren, and a Much Needed Change is Longer Over due .. Apathy is Lethal, In My opinion, Orginally I was for John Edwards, Perhaps a Obama/Edwards Ticket ?? Gran for Change Wisconsin

If the year were 1984 and you had to choose between the "experienced" Larry Bird and the talented "rookie" Michael Jordan, who would you choose to help your team for the next decade or so? I think Obama is to politics what Jordan was to basketball. Larry Bird is always mentioned as "one of the greatest to ever play the game" but Jordan will always be one level above all the greats (Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Dr. J, Bird). He transformed the game and brought an artistry and intensity to basketball that left us awe-inspired. We can't afford to play it safe by choosing more DIVISIVE politics as usual. The Titanic is taking on water and it's time to quit bickering about who's to blame. If Washington is not transformed in the next 8 years, issues like climate change, sinking US economy, and for-profit health care will sink this nation and many others along with it.

Concerning the remaining main-stream candidates.

Q. What do the 08 Super Bowl and the 08 National Election have in common?

A. The effect to the nation from the result of either won't make a damn bit of differece.

It's true, women do like the details. But Mrs. Clinton conveniently leaves the bitter medicine off the shopping list, such as sacrificing good jobs for corporate profits and garnishing wages to pay for skyrocketing health care costs. I'm sure the insurance industry is salivating at that door opening. Just think of the possibilities for them. She is the corporate community's favorite Democrat, even appearing on the cover of Forbes.

But Obama is forced to fight this campaign against her with one hand tied behind his back and the following link explains why. He was given a flick of the lash in South Carolina. Also, although like Edwards, he is a populist, he cannot run as one or his campaign funds will dry up instantly - get real, you can't run without it - and the media will disappear him. So he ends up appearing "fluffy" which he isn't at all. Chances are if Hillary pulls this off, we will end up with McCain anyway. I know I won't vote for her, and the Republicans I know planning to vote for Obama won't either.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020908E.shtml

kathyodat

Who are the Defence Contractors supporting? Hillary! Thats why I'm voting for Obama.

At my caucus yesteray, in Washington State, I read aloud Clinton's and Obama's position on torture, quotes that I copied from an article here on Common Dreams. Obama's position was resolutely against torture, while Clinton said it would be necessary under certain circumstances. Amazingly, the Clinton supporters simply responded "She couldn't have said that. I know that Hillary is against torture."

What's all the buzz about older white women all voting for Hillary?

Gee, I must be some kind of anomoly. But surprise, surprise! We too can think outside the box.

I think Hillary should continue in the Senate where she is doing a good job for the country and the citizens of New York. She is brave and smart and tough, a senator and a citizen to be admired.

But I think this moment in history belongs to Barack. He offers a vision that is so inclusive, intelligent, and respectful of differences that it gives new meaning to the phrase "big tent". I have never felt so focused and excited about a political campaign in my life.

Signed,
Another white grandmother for Obama

It really is amazing to see how many women who say they are for peace can be supporting such a hawk for president. Mrs. Clinton has obviously changed her position on Iraq out of pure convenience. She has also run a dirty campaign and I do not understand how women or men cannot accept her disgusting tactics. McCain will easily beat her on honesty alone.

The Majority of Women Will be Pulling for Obama, My self included... As a Mother and Grandma to 6 beautiful grandchildren WE will make the Difference, Currently there are OVER 7 Million Grandparents Raising thier Grandchildren in this Country and the Numbers keep Getting Higher... Obama Himself was raised by His Single Mother and Beloved Grandparents, That Speaks Volumes !! On Tues Feb 12, Obama will Be comming to Madison Wisconsin, and I will be attending !!!!! I will be doing everything I can to support Him ! Our time Has Come to have Our Voices Heard in This Country... Gran for Change, Cross Plains Wisconsin

Hey All,

Signing the petition means that you urge superdelegates to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote & the most delegates.

The whole idea is that we are telling them not to override the will of the people whatever that may be.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html