The people who think nothing will change if Obama is elected are extremely cynical with good reason. Yes, he is presently with party hacks, and will be in the future controlled in some measure by party influence, as a result of an agenda that has existed in the USA since the robber baron era. Having said that knowing that I, as well as many of you writing here are hoping that something will shake this country into a new direction that includes, stopping the war which is robbing every single person in the USA of wealth, health care and a reasonable life. All the above and other comforts were promised by the industrial revolution but have yet to be forthcoming, without a price many can not pay.

If the average US citizen has some comforts it has come at a price that is questionable. The prices are generations of young people killed to support an ideology that was flawed from the outset. A work ethic that has the wage-earners in families in the USA, working two and three jobs to pay for their basic needs and forty million people living in poverty. The system supports another form of slavery.

All this based in a "free enterprise" system of government that allows corporations the right to, exploit their workers, go where they wish with government subsidy- thereby destroying communities they were part- also, the entire lives of people without any checks by government; to pollute the population and communities with toxic waste leading to any number of health related issues; the public is left to pay for the medical attention caused by the pollution the corporations have caused, if they have the money to do so.

The "American Dream" has caused endless abuses to its population, with the false promise of fame and riches that are legend, supported by the Hollywood myth. The claim that anyone can be president is manifold. However by some fluke of chance and hard work a man has come along that somehow defied conventional wisdom and possibility. He has made the inroads in populist thinking to be embraced by the masses. He has given voice to the dissatisfaction felt by so many people in the USA and the world. Obama has offered change, and yes we who have lived long enough know it is necessary to be critical.

Obama echoes many of us who know intrinsically, what Americans understand: The USA must move in another direction quickly for its citizens and the world! He knows, as we all do, human life hangs in the balance and America bears twenty five percent of that responsibility.

For those who are cynical, I support your views but there is not too much time left! OBama, Kucinich, and even Edwards plus a few others out there have some good ideas that are worth supporting and trying to get the public behind.

Given the nature of the political machinery, this is not a simple task and will require a congress sympathetic to these ideals. It is necessary not only to elect a new president that embraces change but a congress as well that also wants these changes. Obama is not a fool! He knows that this will be difficult, he admits as much. As populist president, it is his intention to go back to the people to help him get his plans through congress should he encounter difficulty and a deadlocked Congress as is the situation now. We need only look at the surveillance bill hung up for Bush because the House recessed before giving its approval. It was a way to allow it to expire before approval, knowing there would be a howl of public anger if the house moved to put it nto law.

The American people voted for a change in this Congress yet to be realized because it is still tied to the "failed policies of the past" with people like Pelosi and others like her, like the Clintons being of that inner back-room type. Obama is a realist and knows the difficulties in front of him should he get the nomination and the presidency.

The ideas that we all put out here are necessary for others who can convey them to the candidate. While it necessary to maintain a healthy pessimism, I think we must shelve cynicism for a while and not let it affect reality. Nothing is perfect; nothing will be perfect, including the nomination of Obama. But we must do what we can to make it work, as I am certain we all try to do. This is necessary to deal with the last possibility of change in the American way for US and global survival.

The war must end! The money spent on the war must be diverted to the rebuilding of the infrastructure of America, as well as to the social services that Americans want. The tax on the excessively rich as well as the diversion of policies away from everything in the world but American need must be looked at in a new way. It is important to help the world but not with military adventures, excepting those which take place through the UN.

It is necessary to make America and the world a more environmentally aware place. The export of American technology can help its economy and also make it energy self-sufficient. It is not only America that must be assisted but also the world; Obama I am happy to say, suggests those beliefs in his rhetoric. The USA lives in a world with other nations like China, whose environmental policy can sink all of us. These are the challenges that Obama has made reference to in his speeches. Yes, one can look at him cynically and the entire process, as many do here quite rightly including myself. Yes, there is a possibility that Americans may be wronged once again by the political process. However, if we do not take this last time to try, by helping Obama if we are able, we may also give up one final chance to do so. I believe as a fervent, committed environmentalist, working in communication, we have lost our last chance if we don't try.

Piston broke, You are exactly correct.

Single Payer Health Care on the Radio
Corporations & Democracy, Friday February 15, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. PST on KZYX&Z FM and, for those of you out of the area, on KZYX's Internet simulcasts at www.kzyx.org.

This Friday, Corporations & Democracy will interview Don Bechler, Chair of the California Universal Health Care Organizing Project. Don will provide an update on the status of Governor Swarzennegger's plan ABX 11, Senator Kuehl's single payer plan SB840, and the national single payer bill HR676. He'll also talk about where the presidential candidates stand on universal health care. Listeners are invited to call in to the show with questions for our guest at 707-937-5103

www.singlepayernow.net
415-695-7891

Hillary Clinton 'HAS' to win in Ohio, Texas, and then Pennsylvania, she must win ALL three. If she does that, she will be the next president. I believe she will do that.

If not, Obama will be the next president. Either will defeat McCain in the general election. If Hillary is the Demo nominee, she should seriously consider asking Obama to be her VP running mate, they would take at least 45 states. If Obama is the nominee, he could have anyone for a running mate, a good choice might be his wife. He will likely win all 50 states.

I'm done, ~Riverman~ will arrive at any time, and explain it all for us differently, and also tell us that John Edwards is a no good, lying creep, for some unknown reason. Riverboy is sort of entertaining, like a circus clown in a forth string circus.

Oops, he beat me here. He types faster.

ABC nuff said.

Riverman,

Correction on Texas. I live here, in Austin (the blue speckle in the red sea).

Texas has a "semi-closed" primary AND a caucus.

Most delegates are available in the semi-closed primary. Then, there is a caucus later.

"Semi-closed" means those voters who have not officially registered with the Democratic Party on the day of the primary can sign on just for a day and vote in the primary.

So, registered Republicans, Greens, Independents, etc., would not be able to vote in the Texas Democratic Primary.

I have read that the Texas process is the most twisted and arcane in the nation. Another quirk of the system here is that the delegates are assigned as available based on voter turnout, I believe in the last Presidential Election.

This is significant because I believe African-American voters had excellent turnout here, where Hispanic-Americans had relatively poor turnout.

In other words, the lead Clinton is trying to cling onto here with Latino voters is not as important in Texas as Obama's lead with African-American voters -- relatively speaking.

Clinton could win the popular vote substantially in the primary and still end up splitting the delegates with Obama.

Kem, how can you think Hillary will win in those states? And Edwards as a super delegate is considering endorsing Hillary. This, after saying she is part of the problem with our corporate controlled government. After I read what he said, I realized that he may be sincere about wanting to end poverty, but he is a political animal who will blow with the wind. Well, right now the wind is in Hillary's face.

kathyodat

I certainly don't see her winning all three of those states. The way it's going right now she'll be lucky if she wins two...

How could anyone trust Edwards--he was conspiring with Billary during the debates to get rid of Kucinich and Gravel.

There are huge differences in a Clinton candidacy and an Obama one. If we grant the Republicans their fondest dream and nominate Hillary, we will be in for an amazingly vicious onslaught from the right that will scare many of the people Obama attracted in, right back out. Many lefties will also sit it out helping the greens and perhaps others. Many Republicans who would vote for Obama, would never vote for Hillary. The battle will be a thousand times harder and extremely distasteful. If we do manage to win anyway we will learn first hand why she is so hated. We will learn the meaning of betrayal.
We will perhaps look back at these innocent times when we stumbled around repeating the incantation, "we have two great candidates" an wonder what the hell we were thinking.

To say that I am not a fan of Hillary is the understatement of a lifetime. I've never followed a primary race like I have this one. To accept a position in her administration as V.P. would be the biggest mistake Obama could make and I think that he knows it.

By suggesting that Barack chose his wife, are you trying to somehow equate the Bill/Hillary combo before us with Obama? The typical Hillary camp cry that the candidates are basically the same on the issues, but Hillary has more experience? They are not the same as candidates, or in inspiring a sense of integrity in their persons.

About Edwards, I am disappointed that he hasn't endorsed someone by now (or even announced that he is not going to endorse someone this primary.) By now, I don't care who he endorses, even if it happens to be my choice of candidate.

I think she will win those three states for several reasons. The same reasons she won in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Mass, Florida, Arkansas, etc. Of course for the moment, Obama has the momentum and that is very critical.

Momentum is wind blown also and is often fleeting. If Obama maintans his momentum, she will lose, she MUST win all three of those states, or declare the jig is up.

I see a biggggg problem if Edwars endorses either of them. Here is why I believe that. During the South Carolina election, he ran TV ads and said at speeches, that during the debate, neither Hillary nor Obama, showed that they were adult enough to be the president. Therefore, how could he have any credibility, to later endorse either of them?

Another thing I want to add is about some Hillary supporters' argument that Obama should wait this one out and try later, that he's young and has time, usually with the comment 'when he has more experience'. Like becoming President is akin to taking your number at the deli. That gives credence to the complaint that Hillary has an unattractive aura of entitlement. It's seems nowadays, it's not only take your turn, but you have to be related to someone or bow out to someone to get that number. I hope Obama maintains his momentum.

KEM says "Riverboy is sort of entertaining, like a circus clown in a forth string circus."

Chill out KEM geez. Can't we all get along? Why do you feel the need to make personal digs against someone who from what I've read shares most of the same views in the big picture. You guys aren't competing for best comments here.

Re "The typical Hillary camp cry that the candidates are basically the same on the issues, but Hillary has more experience"

This is why the opinionating that Clinton and Obama are basically the same on the issues is a moot point, even if it were true, which I do not think it is. Clinton and Obama's leadership styles are fundamentally very different. Clinton wants to bring about change through her working as the president with various government individuals and agencies. She wants to use what she refers to as her experience, which includes her hands-on knowledge of how our various agencies and the individuals within them operate, to change how the government addresses problems.

Obama, on the other hand, wants to bring about change through inspiring our citizens to become engaged and involved productively in our society in ways that will "infect" these agencies with change, and by becoming more effectively involved with our representatives in the House and in the Senate, insisting that they stop prioritizing corporate lobbyists' agendas over the people's agenda.

To steal a line from Obama's post-Potomac victory speech given in Madison, Clinton's approach to the issues is "bound to the failed policies of the past." Obama is asking us, the people, to choose between playing the status quo game, as Clinton is asking us to do, except with her in charge instead of Bush, Cheney, or McCain, and ending the game and replacing it with OUR game.

Folks...It just doesn't matter. Can you say "Super delegates"?

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/31030

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/31029

Save your breath and your arguments--WE ARE TOAST and Democracy is just a word that is in the dictionary.

'You guys aren't competing for best comments here'--we aren't?

To Surrender: 'All hope abandon, ye who enter here...' I can't see how after we Dems have been whining for 7 plus years about Bush having stole the election that the party would even consider such a thing.

Here's what's at a link that another commenter gave:

Sen. Clinton Hedges Lieberman Support
Associated Press
Wednesday, July 5, 2006; Page A02

ALBANY, N.Y., July 4 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, said Tuesday that she will not back the Connecticut Democrat's bid for reelection if he loses their party's primary.

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than 30 years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for reelection, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.

"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," Clinton added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."

Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400736.html

There should be an ad with her quote in it, with the caption "Hillary Clinton LIAR!".

Since when is bombing civilians in Vietnam considered to be heroic? I don't think of John McCain as a hero.

I know Hillary gets money from AIPAC. Does Obama?

Re Superdelegates going against the voters, maybe this is just another non-issue to give Hillary free press and combat the info that Obama leads in the delegate count. Most of the SuperDelegates, I would think, will go with the candidate who is ahead at the end. (Of course, I am the one who writes about 'Thought Reading Tech' so I'm partial to conspiracy theories.)

However, the little twerp who is 17 and a superdelegate who had lunch with Chelsea said that he is going to make up his own mind and not follow his constituants vote.

If Obama has the most votes by any large margin, about 60 or more,__ and the super delgates go to Hillary, McCain will be our next president.

Hey ~Red Pill~, I think Riverman is funny, that's what I meant by that. He's not as funny as Danny Quale was, __ but I think he's funny.

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5697

Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Jewish Magazine Shows How To Cook A Gentile

Excerpt: "This particular cartoon proves beyond a doubt that Jews are fearless and wantonly explicit in their hatred of our European-American heritage and our people and they are not scared in the least to say it openly because there will NEVER be consequences for them. Of course if this cartoon taught someone how to cook a Jew, careers would end, death threats would commence and fines or imprisonment would follow. Jews are the most hateful people on the face of the earth.

-the West

Source: News From the West

Think CNN's Wolf Blitzer will cover this story? Or maybe FOX's Britt Hume will give it some air time.

Don't hold your breath for this atrocious cartoon to ever see the light of day in the Zionist owned MSM. In that Never-Never Land of disinformation and propaganda, news anchors get a pat on the back and pay raises anytime they slander, malign or distort anything Muslim/Arabic.

But woe to the fool who dares to question anything about Israel/Zionism, for their reward is to be fired, threatened with violence, possibly even tossed in prison, all for asking honest questions about the descendants of the Khazars."

It is good to hear people write their different points of view. Great thoughts are brought forward in dialogue and exchange not presumption. But some who write here think they have the edge on intelligence and awareness. There are some here who believe that the democratic will of the people should be overturned by the presumption of power as in the super-delegate issue of the democratic party. This is raises the specter of large-scale defections toward Republican stupidity. Should this occur it would affect world security and the issue of climate change directly. These issues are dependent upon radical solutions, which include global economic changes. Defection of democrats and particularly the young people -who have hope and believe that change is necessary-risk an upheaval that could possibly tilt the election in the Republican direction.

This reflects the basic problem of this so-called democracy of America where a win in the popular vote does not guarantee the change in direction that the Electoral College can make. The Democratic Super-delegate issue is a reflection of the absurd non-democratic American condition of the Electoral College. Should Barak Obama win the popular vote from America's Democratic caucuses, delegates and committed states prior to the convention I do not believe that he should accept second place as vice president, which seems to be the mood of the media controlled races and spin jockeys. I believe that he should maintain himself as the democratically designated elected leader of the Democratic Party.

Further, should he be forced to that position by the party, he should leave the Democratic Party and form a third party and run against both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. This is what every one who is really thinking in this country wants and very much needs. Should that occur I think he should attempt to attract the Green Party and other great thinkers who believe as he does and what his rhetoric suggests, that we must move away from the "failed policies of the past" if we are to save this world for future generations. He has stated he has run because the time is now not in the future. The changes needed are as he puts it "right now" not in the future and the perils of environmental collapse are approaching so quickly that we do not have the luxury of another eight years of "business as usual" which would be the Clinton way, before he can claim the office of president.

He is a populist candidate that has offered hope! He should continue that platform with the courage to take the courageous steps necessary if the standard bearer position is denied to him to effect party change. He should do it if not in the Democratic Party than a third party which he forms if the first spot is denied him. Should the party be given to Clinton, we all lose and the possibility of change goes down with him. Should he follow the Clinton policy as suggested by some pundits we all fail. But if he take half the country with him to a third party we have a chance. He believes that the failed policies of the past exist within the entrenched two party systems in congress. I believe the only way of preventing another move to those failed policies is not to allow Hillary Clinton to win.

This public denial by him of allowing super-delegates to determine the election would be a way of circumventing being moved to second place. I heard one of the super-delegates speaking from Georgia. He was black and under examination by the press, it was clear that the direction of the super delegates would be to overturn the national will and cause the disaffection of the youth of America. No one has a right to do that since the older generation through "the failed policies of the past" has put us in the present circumstances of possibly destroying their future and their life.

In the final analysis this country did not rise to the level of intelligence and courage by electing George Bush to office for two terms and I doubt that it will by choosing Barak Obama to lead. This will lead to chaos and the disaffection of the youth and possibly the election of John McCain and a continuation of war politics for another hundred year, perhaps just thirty because that is the time we have left to make the radical shift in global politics and economics.

It is good to hear people write their different points of view. Great thoughts are brought forward in dialogue and exchange not presumption. But some who write here think they have the edge on intelligence and awareness. There are some here who believe that the democratic will of the people should be overturned by the presumption of power as in the super-delegate issue of the democratic party. This is raises the specter of large-scale defections toward Republican stupidity. Should this occur it would affect world security and the issue of climate change directly. These issues are dependent upon radical solutions, which include global economic changes. Defection of democrats and particularly the young people -who have hope and believe that change is necessary-risk an upheaval that could possibly tilt the election toward the Republican direction.

This reflects the basic problem of this so-called democracy of America where a win in the popular vote does not guarantee the change in direction that the Electoral College can make as we saw in 2004. The Democratic Super-delegate issue is a reflection of the absurd non-democratic American condition of the Electoral College. Should Barak Obama win the popular vote from America's Democratic caucuses, delegates and committed states prior to the convention I do not believe that he should accept second place as vice president, which seems to be the mood of the media controlled races and spin jockeys. I believe that he should maintain himself as the democratically designated elected leader of the Democratic Party.

Further, should he be forced to that position by the party, he should leave the Democratic Party and form a third party and run against both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. This is what every one who is really thinking in this country wants and thinks the USA very much needs. Should that occur I think he should attempt to attract the Green Party and other great thinkers, who believe as he does, and his rhetoric suggests, that we must move away from the "failed policies of the past" if we are to save this world for future generations. He has stated he has run because the time is now not in the future. The changes needed, are as he puts it, "right now", not in the future and the perils of environmental collapse are approaching so quickly that we do not have the luxury of another eight years of "business as usual" which would be the Clinton way, before he can claim the office of president.

He is a populist candidate that has offered hope! He should continue that platform with the courage to take the courageous steps necessary if the standard bearer position is denied to him to effect party change and changes in American direction. He should do it, if necessary, not in the Democratic Party but by creating a third party, should the first spot be denied him. Should the party be given to Clinton, we all lose and the possibility of change goes down with him. Should he follow the Clinton policy as suggested by some pundits we all fail. But if he take half the country with him to a third party we have a chance. He believes that the failed policies of the past exist within the entrenched two party systems in congress. I believe the only way of preventing another move to those failed policies is not to allow Hillary Clinton to win.

This public denial by him of allowing super-delegates to determine the election would be a way of circumventing being moved to second place. I heard one of the super-delegates speaking from Georgia. He was black and under examination by the press, it was clear that the direction of the super delegates would be to overturn the national-will and cause the disaffection of the youth of America. No one has a right to do that since the older generation through "the failed policies of the past" has put us in the present circumstances of possibly destroying their future and their life.

In the final analysis this country did not rise to the level of intelligence and courage by electing George Bush to office for two terms and I doubt that it will by choosing Barak Obama to lead. Should this occur, it will lead to chaos and the disaffection of the youth and could possibly elect John McCain and a continuation of war for another hundred years, perhaps just thirty because that is the time we have left to make the radical shift in global politics and economics.

KEM PATRICK February 14th, 2008 1:49 pm
I see a biggggg problem if Edwars endorses either of them. Here is why I believe that. During the South Carolina election, he ran TV ads and said at speeches, that during the debate, neither Hillary nor Obama, showed that they were adult enough to be the president. Therefore, how could he have any credibility, to later endorse either of them?

Makes me wonder why they even go near him. They either have very short memories or they are pandering, CRIPES!!!!!!!
I think, at this time, Senator Obama has not met with him. I hope he does not.
I must admit there was a time when I was going to vote for Mr. Edwards, glad I did not use my absentee ballot early .

The Mitt Romney-Hillary Clinton Corporate Massachusetts Healthcare Mandate Plan

"But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.

Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state's insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year's national average. That would undercut the plan's secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs."We're going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits," said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. "If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don't think health reform is sustainable."…

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html

Obama's Plan

"Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

"Over the last two years, 13 states have disclosed employers that are major users of state provided health insurance programs which are aimed at low-income families. Wal-Mart has topped the list in all the states, except Massachusetts where it was second and Wisconsin, which did not disclose the usage of employers other than Wal-Mart.

Combined, the 13 states disclose that at least 55,000 Wal-Mart employees, children, and spouses are covered by state health insurance programs. A total of 480,000 Wal-Mart employees work in these 12 states, meaning that on average for every nine Wal-Mart employees, at least one Wal-Mart family member is getting state-provided health care.

A total of approximately 505,000 Wal-Mart employees work in these 13 states."

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/state-reports.html

"Our governor-elect and the Legislature are about to embark on another cycle of budget discussions. In normal budget times, it is a moral obligation for lawmakers to spend taxpayers' funds wisely. During the worst budget crisis in California's history, it is imperative. Every dollar spent should be used strategically, effectively and toward meeting our obligation to protect our most vulnerable citizens and to educate the next generation.

That is what makes recent revelations about Wal-Mart, one of the world's wealthiest corporations and the largest private employer in America, so disturbing. Wal-Mart is one of many large corporations that skimp on health care for their employees. Inadequate health insurance coverage, high deductibles and cost-sharing that is out of reach for low-wage workers add to the corporate bottom-line. Wal-Mart also reportedly carefully controls the number of workers who achieve full-time status and higher benefit levels.

In the marketplace, where one of these giants is competing against a small business that is responsible to its workers and to the community, the giant will win every time.

Who picks up the tab for this lack of responsibility? We all do. Wal-Mart provides its workers with access to a Web-based service that allows a county social services worker to immediately verify income and employment. Such access can help to qualify workers quickly for Medi-Cal benefits, food stamps and other taxpayer-funded aid."-Assemblywoman Sally Lieber

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1107-07.htm

"Wal-Mart. An Example of Why Workers Remain. Uninsured and Underinsured."

www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/walmart/upload/Wal-Mart_final.pdf

"More than 80 percent of the 6,000 factories in Wal-Mart's worldwide database of suppliers are in China. Wal-Mart estimates it spent $15 billion on Chinese-made products last year, accounting for nearly one-eighth of all Chinese exports to the United States. If the company that Sam Walton built with his "Made in America" ad campaign were itself a separate nation, it would rank as China's fifth-largest export market, ahead of Germany and Britain."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22507-2004Feb7?language=printer

"Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions"

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1

"But she supported most favored nation trade status despite concerns about China's human rights record.

William Kristol, a self-described Reagan-era internationalist and the editor of The Weekly Standard, said Mrs. Clinton's speech sounded like the thoughts of Senator Moynihan. But, he said, her remarks hearkened back to Reagan as well. "You've got to be happy that Democrats are now willing to embrace at least some aspects of energetic American leadership," he said."

'Mrs. Clinton Suggests That U.S. Engage Aggressively in World Affairs' by Dean E. Murphy, The New York Times, October 18, 2000

"China's entry into the World Trade Organization was supposed to improve the U.S. trade deficit with China and create good jobs in the United States. But those promises have gone unfulfilled: the total U.S. trade deficit with China reached $235 billion in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, this growing deficit eliminated 1.8 million U.S. jobs (Scott 2007). The world's biggest retailer, U.S.-based Wal-Mart was responsible for $27 billion in U.S. imports from China in 2006 and 11% of the growth of the total U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2006. Wal-Mart's trade deficit with China alone eliminated nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs in this period

The manufacturing sector and its workers were hardest hit by the growth of Wal-Mart's imports. Wal-Mart's increased trade deficit with China eliminated 133,000 manufacturing jobs, 68% of all jobs lost. Overall, the Wal-Mart trade deficit displaced 308,100 jobs in 2006. On average, 77 U.S. jobs were eliminated for each one of Wal-Mart's 4,022 U.S. stores in 2006"

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20070627

"The Wal-Mart effect: Its Chinese imports have displaced nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs"

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib235

I'm not a Hillary Clinton supporter. However,I'm alarmed by talk I've heard on liberal radio talk shows and from some others here, this idea that Hillary has a plan for "garnishing your wages" to pay for universal health care and I would like to try to educate people about what's really going on here. "Garnishing wages" is a Republican or Rush Limbaugh way of framing the issue. Any sensible, achievable plan for national health insurance uses a payroll deduction, similar to that used to fund Medicare and Social Security. This would cost the vast majority of people less than they pay now for health care. That is what we should be aiming for.(And nobody has ever proposed that there could be "free health care". Even bandaids cost money.)Garnishing wages is something ordered by a judge to force someone to repay a debt. Using that phrase suggests paying for universal health care is some sort of onerous punishment. If you think paying for a national health plan with a payroll deduction is "garnishing wages" and you're therefore against it, then you must be against Social Security and Medicare too, and you should vote for Ron Paul, who would do away with all such government programs. You should also know that the best plans for national health insurance (like HR676) would cumulatively save people 300+ billion dollars a year because of reducing bureaucratic waste, paperwork, and insurance company profit (including multibillion dollar retirement packages for CEO's), while simultaneously eliminating copays and deductibles, waiting periods, and preexisting conditions clauses. It would also distribute the costs of health care and health insurance equitably because it's a paid by a percentage of income --again, same as Soc.Sec. and Medicare-- the less you earn, the less you pay. But the benefits are the same for everyone.
Furthermore, you should know that there's a big difference between "mandated health insurance" and single-payer (HR676). Mandated means everyone has to buy health insurance, similar to the requirement in most states to have auto insurance to drive. Massachusetts has tried mandated health insurance and it has proven not to reduce costs. It's subsidized for those under a certain income level, so even under that system the poor aren't ripped off, but cumulatively the people pay just as much-- and get the same crappy product-- because it's still private insurance companies. The single-payer system eliminates most private insurance and is successfully used in Canada, France, Britain, Germany, and many other countries. Neither Clinton or Obama is currently talking about single-payer but I'm less inclined to think Hillary will take us in that direction because of her corporate ties.

I still like Edwards, I wish he were our president. I just can't see any sense of him endorsing anyone. I mean, how can a person claim his opponents are not worthy of being the president, and then endore them. That's laughable.

KEM...Not laughable--POLITICAL GRAB-ASS! SURELY you aren't shocked?!

Well, if he endores and if his endorsee wins, it will be interesting to see what the bribe was.

Barak O-big-money? Well at least he's no Hillary.

Sometimes politics is very laughable, even if it isn't funny. ___It usually isn't funny.

Anyone notice, when Hillary was 70 delegates ahead, it was a deadlock. Now that Obama is 25 ahead, the deadlock is broken. Good writers can really put things in any way they wish to have the readers picture it.

Another pro-Hillary writer could write: "The fledgling Obama is only slightly ahead after the past weeks voting and the Hillary/Obama struggle continues, but with Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania looming, the upstart Obama must be concered that his short lived momentum will fade, as the more experienced Senator Clinton seems prepared to swoop those three states".

I believe Hillary may have Edwards as the Attorney General, endorsment or not. That would be very good.

Obama may select Conyers? __ He may not?

Conyers hasn't shown much mettle of late. Eliot Spitzer would be better.

Hillary's and Obama's health care plans are almost identical. Both would rein in some of the excesses of the health insurance industry and provide a government run alternative. Hillary estimates her plan would save $120 billion a year or $2200 per family. That's good. Far better would be a single-payer system which would save 3 times as much by setting up a Medicare-like system which would effectively push private insurance out as a major player.

lillilu, that cartoon was satire, don't be a retard. ------ but back to the delegates, CommonDreams.org has petitions you can send out to the delegates.

NOOO, I meant to say Moveon.org. !! ( Speaking of retards,me)

Hillary would never appoint Edwards Attorney General. He'd probably try to enforce the law or something crazy like that. Can't have a loose cannon.

This baffles me:

"I think she will win those three states for several reasons. The same reasons she won in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Mass, Florida, Arkansas, etc."

She can hardly win any of them for the "same reason" she won Florida, FGS! Nor will she win any of them because many voters had not seen or heard Obama.

In reality, the Convention will go like this: The regular delegates will vote. They will make the choice, be it one or two ballots. The Super Delegates will be in a back room, and come out and to a single vote choose who the regular delegates chose.

They would not dare do any different. Those who have promised to support one candidate or another are symbolic now. That little prick that had lunch with Chelsea Clinton was just trying to show his power. There will be some arm twisting. But in the end, all of the super delegates will be on one page.

If it is Obama, Bill Clinton might get a pass. He will just not walk out with the other super delegates. (Any one else that adamant will be told to not go out either.) The Democratic party has to do it that way, otherwise the party looks like fools. Party solidarity matters more than who they supported in the primary. Remember, in the end, these ARE the party leaders.

Riverman 1 said:

hillary lost it really bad when she said the free health care will not be free but she will garnish the low wages of people to pay the ins…. what a MAJOR blunder.. this has hit latinos and blacks the worst and will spread like a firestorm !!!

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

You are so right riverman1, and to further support your comntention a recent poll found that by a nearly 2:1 majority those who understood "socialized medicine" to mean:

1. All medical personnel are government employees

2. All hospitals and other medical facilities are owned and operated as government facillities

3. all treatments are covered for all people

preferred such a system to the one presently in op[eration in the US. Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore are right. This is an issue whose time has come and where change is so long overdue.

Say Amen Kathyodat!

*** Obama/Kucinich 2008? That could change a lot.

lillulu,

To understand what is really funny with the cartoon at

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5697

you must google "long pig" with cannibalism.

This baffles me. "Many voters had not seen or heard Obama".

I do believe Obama had recieved just as much, or perhaps even more publicity as Hillary had, prior to and after the elections in all of the state primaries, starting with New Hapshire and ending with Washington DC. If Obama maintains his momentum, he will win in either Texas, New York and Pennsylvania, or win all three. Hillary MUST win ALL three of them. Obama only has to win ONE of them to have the most delegates come convention time. We'll see how it goes, momentum is fleeting, just ask Juli-ano and McCain.

I'd almost bet, that if Hillary is the president, she will have John Edwards as our Attorney General.

Poet,
That stuff about garnishing the wages of low income people is absolute nonsense. And nobody ever talked about free health care. Please read my posts from 5:17 and 6:13pm to begin to understand the health care debate. There is so much misinformation out there. Both Hillary's and Obama's plans include subsidies for low income people. The "socialized medicine" you described is exactly how the British system works, and approximately how the VA works. The American medical community and Americans in general would not support a completely government operated health system nor would that be necessary to achieve an equitable system. What is needed is national health INSURANCE, for that is where the real waste, fraud, and disenfranchisement is.

Poet,
By the way Dennis Kucinich was an early cosponsor of HR676, The National Health Insurance Bill, also known as single-payer health care.

thank you mr doyle for noting what others have observed for sometime; whether you call it a repulsion for the clintons or a deep felt endorsement of barak obama, the voters understand obama's message and recognize the dynamic 'change' that could occur with a liberal (relative to his peers in the senate) african-american (literaly). a man who is a generation behind his contemporaries - mccain and clinton and of course a person not named bush or clinton. these 5 messsages (change,dem,multi-cultural,multi-generational, not bush/clinton) have already had an impact on the electoral process as was noted yesterday by the comments of donna edwards on dem now. she just defeated a sitting congressperson in the primary, in large part to high voter turnout.her message incorporated the premise that the iraq war authorization vote was the wrong vote.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/13/a_changing_tide_from_democratic_voters

"AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about your differences with Congressman Wynn over Iraq? You made that a major issue of your campaign. He's a Democrat.

DONNA EDWARDS: Well, I mean, the congressman voted to authorize the war in Iraq, and I believe that that was, you know, a very poor decision and that the resulting both human cost and financial cost of the country has been huge, not to mention our position, the United States's position, in the world. And I don't think that his vote fairly represented our congressional district. And I believe that those voices needed to be heard in the Congress by somebody who's a standup Democrat who represents this congressional district. I think the voters got that message. And, you know, voters have an awful lot of things going on in their minds [inaudible]. We have a troubled economy. We're facing record foreclosures in our congressional district, just like around the country. And we want somebody who really speaks for real change and who will make a difference in the lives of working people. And those messages came through yesterday.

AMY GOODMAN: If you win in November—and yours is a heavily Democratic district—you will become the first African American woman to represent Maryland in Congress. Can you talk about what that means to you, what you feel that means to Maryland and the country?

DONNA EDWARDS: Well, you know, I mean, I think it's obviously a tremendous step forward for the country. And in the course of the campaign, we had a chance to talk about a range of different issues and concerns, and this actually never really, you know, came up. And certainly the force of history was out there for us. And now, I'm just so humbled by the prospect of serving. I fully expect to win in November. We are an 80 percent Democratic district, and I'm going to use the time between now and January 2009, when I'm sworn into the next congress, to build an agenda that will work for our congressional district and set us on a new path for the country. And so, I'm excited about that."

bush, mccain, clinton authorized this war. mccain will be tied to this in the election (as kerry was in 2004). clinton loses (at least based on polling at this point coupled with her own vote as a dem to authorize war.

obama isn't just attacking clintons. the candidates that are pro peace, and are at least listening to the public are benefiting from mr obama's surge. i don't believe this surge is being forged in the backrooms of media conglomerates and fortune 500 companies. in this case i see the media nyt's, npr, etc.. actually being very sympathetic to ms clintons plight, the mass media may distort the message but they can't deny the reality of mr obama's victories to other americans.

in fact, i think obama's fund raising (mostly from small contributers as has been noted by numerous news outlets, also obama refuses to accept pac $) and ability to pull voters to the caucuses in the primaries shows exactly how obama understands 'the grassroots'. it's really on our shoulders folks. if we can write letters to the fcc and give money to our favored 'leftist' causes we can continue to pressure the next democratic president of the us, obama. who ever said the mission was over b/c the dem won. however a dem pres and a super majority (maybe mid terms 2010) in the congress would allow prog activists to influence the politicians, from a closer vantage point than the status quo where the loony tunes neo-cons (remember the letter in 2000 by project for a new american century)have refused to listen to anyone, the repubs will lose in 2008. if the dem party splinters i'll go with the masses away from the party.

please donate to kucinich and sheehan...........
see you on the streets of denver...........peace.....

thank you sen harkin for lambasting the superdelegate process today and thank you sen kohl and sen feingold for refusing to fall into the fray, by reserving your endorsements until the election.

also please listen to Juan Gonzalez interviewed by bob mcchesney this last sunday on mediamatters,

http://www.will.uiuc.edu/am/mediamatters/default.htm

Gonzalez is sympathetic to the more 'nader' oriented posters here. a great interview (he calls both candidates neo liberal)...............

If any one else thinks that the following suggestion is worthy of consideration by Sen. Obama pass it on.

The best approach from now on is for Senator Obama to schedule an adequate number of " tell the senator whats on your mind and what is important to you" meets in several cities in both Ohio and Texas. Example of site meets would be colleges, universities, chambers of commerce, etc,.

The goal is to impress on the public that he is there to listen to their points of view. His primary interest is to be the kind of President that people can relate to. Not the President whose orimary goal is just to be President.

One last freebie. NO MORE DEBATES.... NO MORE DEBATES.... NO MORE DEBATES... NO MORE DEBATES. i wanna listen to the voters. i want the voters to hear what I offer. NO MORE DEBATES.
I WANT TO LISTEN TO VOTERS CONCERNS. WHICH I BELIEVE THE VOTER WOULD APPRECIATE MORE THAN. HE SAID SHE SAID.

SURE FIRE WAY TO PROVE THAT A CANDIDATE IS WILLING TO LISTEN RATHER THAN JUST DEBATE HIGH SCHOOL STYLE.

BREAK A LEG OBAMA.

ike kay, you have a decent idea there - if O'Bama is forced aside by the superdelegates then he should quit the party and go Green. Let's all remember that the Green platform is the platform of the people. The capitalist establishment is a parasite that is strangling its host - the people and the planet, killing them. Remember that prosperity is down today compared to the 1970s and that is not because it is inevitable for jobs to drift to low-wage countries. It's because the capitalist system has sought to profit through addicting Americans to material luxury, convenience, and other opiates, relaxing our responsibilities to ourselves, our society and our planet, and now we're getting our karmic blowback. O'Bama has a simple choice - go Green and lead America back to where it's supposed to be, or stay Demok and help America go to hell. Very simple, kind of like arithmetic - there's only one correct answer.