Get Real America Obama doesn't even pledge allegiance to our flag and were going to elect him President...Get Real or Bend Over it's your choice!!!

Get real America Obama doesn't even pledge allegiance to our flag of the United States of America and were going to elect him President....Get Real or Bend Over it's your choice!!!!!

ike kay, if you will study the new voting system I posted above you will see it is just what you are asking for. If you can find a way to 'cheat' the system I'd like to know.

As far as the banks charging to be part of the election process it surely is to be less expensive than buying all these corruptable voting machines, and if they don't go along how about a claim of emminent domain? If they can take someones land to build a shopping center, claiming it is for the greater public good, then why not do the same for the banking industry, which would basically be telling the banks who refused to help their country on certain voting days their charter as a bank or corporation could be pulled.

Since the debate it appears there are some who still think that Hllary Clinton will win. She will not win and finally the American people are just getting it there must be a fundemental change in Washington!

Clinton is not change she and all those like her husband the president, are just harbingers of the "failed policies of past"! We need a complete change of all the congress with new people as so many know and a change of the voting system. The voter fraud that would be done away with with using green machines would be a good start. But how much would the banks charge since they are the most crooked of all?

Others here, like me, are also fed up with the foul mouthed, low level and all too frequent blogs of some people.

While I have issues with either Hill, or Bama, I certainly don't want another divisive obstructive Pub winning. Actually, KEM, you are correct that Bama was over 100 delegates a couple days ago, but that changed after Tuesday's primary totals.

It's (politics) all about money, though. Are you aware Obama has donated more to the campaigns of delagates than Hillary? Frankly I think these 'contributions' (almost $900,000 so far) are more correctly bribes, but that is the sorry state American politics are in right now. Do you remember the old comic strip called, "There ought to be a law"? Well there should be one about bribing delegates...period.

Debating about which of our current choices are the best for us is an excercise in futility...they all have skeletons in their closets. What we are debating is whose graveyard is smaller. I don't prefer any of them, really. There will be no 'change' unless we have honest elections, but there is a way for this. I've posted my idea a number of times on various sites, and even sent it to BlackBoxVoting.org (no response), but here it is one more time:

"A Better Election System" By Paul Magill Smith 3-8-2K6
"To begin with, in the United States there must be a powerful demolition of the old political order: We need elections where all votes are cast and counted. The campaign against voter repression is the essential civil rights struggle of our time, even though most progressives don't seem to realize it yet. Prevailing will require fundamental reform such as the introduction of nationwide vote-by-mail (the Oregon system). Without that, and also many relentless prosecutions, nothing else will be achieved".—JAMES K. GALBRAITH March 30, 2006 "Taming Global Capitalism Anew"—(April 17, 2006 issue of The Nation Magazine)

James K. Galbraith, chair of the board of Economists for Peace and Security, teaches at the University of Texas and is senior scholar with the Levy Economics Institute.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest round of corruption in our government stems from the biggest executive crime of all. In collusion with the Supreme Court our glorious president/dictator/tyrant "stole" the election of 2000, with another criminal (Tom DeLay) "stole" a majority in the house through re-districting, and with corporate henchmen in Diebold & Company "stole" another presidency in 2004. Whether you agree with the presidential election results or not there were statistical anomolies, and thousands of citizen complaints that should have required greater scrutiny & inquiry.

Since the 2000 presidential election our national coffers have been looted to the tune of trillions of dollars, and with almost three more years to go in this theocratic oligarchy there is still much more damage to come. Our financial ruin, through an unsustainable balance of trade deficit, massive fiscal deficits, and a consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few individuals & corporations, bodes ill for generations of Americans to come—IF there are generations to come after the effects of global warming, a state of perpetual global war, and depleted uranium have their way with us.

A bleak picture-yes-but there is cause for hope. Going under the assumption most Americans have a streak of common sense, and an inbred respect for 'the rule of law', the first step toward retrieving our now stolen democracy is restoring honesty to our electoral process. Accountability, verifiability, and transparency are not luxuries; they are necessities if democracy in America (the world) is to be viable.

With these considerations in mind I propose an entirely new election system for this country. It uses, for the most part, existing equipment & technology already in place throughout the entire country, and would only require the development of some software. Election expenses would be reduced, election theft would become a thing of the past, and national referendums on key issues would become a possibility. The 'will of the people' would become king, instead of the preferences of King George/Dick/Karl/Donald/ etc.

So here is the idea. Currently in the US there are 368,000+ ATM machines. They are easy to use (even from a car), provide a paper trail, accessible by use of a card with security features, and very accurately keep track of billions of transactions every month (a 1% accuracy error, which is acceptable for most elections, would land bankers out of their jobs & very likely jailed).

OK, so the first part deals with voting at ATM's, except when they are being used for elections they would become AVM's (Automatic Voting Machines).

***(Important Paragraph) The issue of verifiability would be very simple also. Since each registered voter would receive their own magnetic credit-card type, individually numbered card (requiring a personalized identification number-PIN-to make it work), each voter would have a specific number, and security that they were the only one who had the secret code to access the AVM. Following an election their unique number, along with the way their vote was recorded would be published in the local paper & on the internet at a specific site. Since all the voter numbers could be placed in numerical order it would be easy to scan down the list to your number and verify your vote was cast for the person you wanted it to be.

***(Equally Important) If it was an election with candidates in a number of positions your vote would read as a multi-character number. An example would be 1324113 in which you voted for 7 different people for as many electable posts. The AVM would have given you a hard copy receipt to be used to verify against the posted list.
ATM's are already linked to central computers, so collection of the total votes from all the machines should present very little problem. Election officials would be necessary at these institutions to verify all the votes were retrieved, but the elimination of officials at each precinct polling place would eliminate much of the costs of holding elections as with our current system. As a further dis-incentive to election fraud, caused by computer tampering, if a certain percentage or number of voters provide their AVM receipt to election officials, and their vote code doesn't match that of the central computers, the election results are AUTOMATICALLY declared void, resulting in a new election.

Since I have only begun thinking & writing about this new system I am sure there are many details to be considered and worked out. The bottom line is the current election system is broken, with millions of Americans lacking confidence in the extant election process & results.

As the world's oldest democracy, holding our 'system' up as a model for budding or want-to-be democracies around the globe, it behooves us to make sure our own system is the best we can possibly make it, and the one others will wish to emulate. "Do as I say" is not good enough. If America is to 'talk the talk' we must 'walk the walk' also.

Paul Magill Smith
Richmond, VA
Paul.Magill@Rockitz.net

I welcome replies & suggestions.

Just to set the record straight:

The first post I wrote on this subject, several days ago, I gave the opinion that Hillary had to win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, or she would be out of the race. I never, ever said I hated Obama, I have repeatidely stated, I don't like some of his campaign methods, believe he is a well spoken con artist and feel that Hillary would be a better choice and if she is chosen, she should pick Obama as her V/P running mate.

Because I wrote that, ~Riverman~ has constantly written that I'm either a fool, an idiot, or stupid. Three days ago, Riverman said Obama was over 100 delegates ahead, I said he wasn't and as of this moring, according to all of the news channels, Obama leads by (61) delegates. But my math is flawed, according to Riverman and his nasty side kick ~Dougwagner~, who instigates fights here by telling others they have their head op their ass, etc.

I still say Hillary must win in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. If she does she will lead in the final delegate count and have the most super delegates If she does not win all three, she is out of it, unless they end up counting Michigan and Florida. Without a caucus vote with those two states, I believe that would be a serious mistake on the Demo's part.

Hey there ~WernerS~. Is a miscreat the one who initiate the sniping, by telling another they disagree with, that they have their head up their ass, or the one who replys to the insult?

I believe you should identify by name who the miscreats are that you are ORDERING off of this site; or do you fear doing that? __ Perhaps you should buy your own site, if the bloggers who post here disturb you.

ISN'T IT BETTER TO LIGHT ONE LITTLE CANDLE THAN CURSE THE DARKNESS?. The greatest danger is for some us "overinformed progressives" to succumb to NIHILISM, defeatism, cynicism, undue sarcasm and HOPELESSNESS. Some posters are abusing the privilege of constant, continual posting and they know who they are!!There is no moderator on this site YET. Finally, possibly a tiny few may just be out-and-out provocateurs. Name calling and phrases that show contempt for another poster just diminish the power and uniqueness of this site. It is vital to keep hope alive to have a democrat win in Nov.,2008. Personally, I prefer Obama over Clinton.I will be grateful for Clinton to win over McCain if they become the candidates. If Clinton wins, will she realize my hopes and dreams? Get real!!! It's a choice between possibly slowing down authoritarianism: or it growing even faster in a more virulently toxic soil. (Miscreats, bug off this site!!!)

It pleases me no end that you are a kissin buddy of DOGWAGNER Riverman, and that you both disagree with me on every issue. DOUGWAGER is a young law student, a member of the far right, young Repugs and is both a shill and a troll for them. He even joined the Green Party for awhile so he could claim credibility on sites such as this. I once saw similar situations in a large city, where Repugs worked in Demo and green Party headquarters, They call that type of moleing under, "Rat Fu%king". Actually those two words should be reversed for young Dougie.

kem p. what about hillary's vote on kyl/lieberman? mizz hillary with that vote showed her aipac supporters/handlers that she continues to be their girl. aipac wants to attack iran and mizz hillary will do it if they tell her to. and aipac will not change their mind on iran. they view iran as a danger to israel's right to expand.

Some people seem to be on attack of others who just simply don't get it but they are getting it just want to be contrary! With enough people writing fine insightful thoughts about this political process, I am certian they will come around. It is not that others are not trying hard or don't care.

Congratulations to all who take the time here, for your thinking. It is nice to know all of you are out there trying to influence cogent, and rational thinking in this final election, doing research and are working hard to inform and make a difference which will determine whether the young people get to have a life.

Be well and keep the passion going!

Well dang ~Riverman~ I have my head up my ass and it's difficult to think straight in that position.

Hillary will not support a war with Iran. Obama wants to have one with Pakistan though. That would be interesting.

if hillary pulls US troops out of iraq it will be to send them into iran. kem p. are you aware of her vote for the kul/lieberman amendment?

KEM PATRICK February 18th, 2008 7:23 pm

mr patrick i'm glad you have a strong voice, it's refreshing to hear a person with such convictions. but sir your dead wrong about our recent wars, they were designed many years before bush came to power (as d wagner's quotes above demonstrate, google project for a new american century) and they were designed by people tied to the maintenance of US hegemony through the control of oil. just look at the map. iran (very large oil reserves) is essentially surrounded by US troops. if iran fell, the saudi/US gov't will have indescribable power over all, emerging economies like china and india and other blocks (like the europeans for example, who seem to have a higher sense of the dignity of people - if the euro's want to object to some offensive policy in the future we can turn off the spigit, as the russians threatened with natural gas last year). iran would not be as threatened today w/out our presence in iraq. iran is the next phase in the endless war for resources. obama has agreed to open up diplomatic relations with iran (clinton, who did authorize military force in iraq calls him naive).
my sign in 2002 said no blood for oil, it was as easy to understand then as it is now. BTW- clinton's experience includes being married to a man who is responsible for the death of over 500,000 civilians (mostly children) who died excruciating deaths from lack of medicine. is that experience you want in your court kem?

dougwagner,

sir i accidentally assumed you were a temp worker the other day, and i presumptiously lumped you into the lumpenproletariat . i didn't mean to insult your intelligence. i hope that isn't what your reference was (the guy at the computer table in loft above the workers) i do believe in marxist ideals, and i'm not afraid of using his terms. by lumpenproletariat i mean the lowest rung of workers who are constantly on the go seeking new employment, because their work is so unstable. i've easily worked 15 different jobs in the past 3 years as well as working as a laborer in 5 states. traditionally these folks are very reactionary (not peace activists, greens or progressive dems). yet many believe it's the consciousness of these workers that could change the tide, in fact its the proletariat that rejects the migrant workers for fear they'll take their jobs (attitudes projected towards immigrants, the homeless and people in prison). it's why our public schools are in disarray, it's why jerry mander had to write a book called 4 arguments for the elimination of TV. the elites never want this volatile force activated.
i support obama because he represents change the masses can understand, and i believe he will implement policies that would be advantageous for me as an individual and for the people i live and work with. they know this. unfortunately out of my team of 12 people where i work, only 2 participated in the caucus (both voted for obama) but 10 of the 12 people overwhelmingly supported obama (i've given them voter registration forms). i also support obama in their name, the people who support this candidate but for various reasons did not or could not vote. not anonymous people - rather people whose faces are as clear to me as the text on this page.like ike kay, i do not intentionally try to insult people, thank you again for your well constructed, informative, well thought out posts.......

all the posts here are amazing, thank you

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

You needn't yell, my hearing is fine. You assume some are hurt and angry, perhaps you get angry from reading a computer screen, I don't. I'm often amused and sometimes amazed by the ignorance of others. I also don't assume and often use the words perhaps, may, maybe, etc. You put that shoe of yours on yet?

I will support Obama if he is the Demo candidate, I am supporting no one now since John Edwards dropped out. I do believe if Hillary is the president she will pull our troops out of Iraq and believe Obama will not.

THERE , THERRE , THERE FOR THOSE WHO ARE HURT AND ANGRY, BE CALM I AM HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR ATTITUDES OF SUPPORT FOR CHANGE, THE ONLY THING MISSING IS YOUR SUPPORT FOR OBAMA THE ONLY HOPE THERE IS!

What I like about this site, is about 100 or so disagree with Dougwagner and say he's a soplistic blowhard, and a few diagree with me.

That is precicely what I don't like about you DOUGWAGNER. I disagree with you on this issue and so you tell me I have my head up my ass. You say with indignation, any fool would realize the war with Iraq was only about oil.

You know what Dougwagner? I never heard that fact in 2,000, 2001, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 2006. Like 200+ million other Americans and the countless billions of people from all of the other world's nations, they and I heard, it was all about Saddam having WMDs and his supporting Osama bin Laden on the 9-11 attacks. To this day, I have never heard our press or media, or anyone in government with credibility, except Greenspan, acknowledge the real reason Bush went to war was for the Iraqi oil. I believe it is the reason and so now do many in our Congress. ___ It was not the reason in 2002. If you knew it then, why didn't you have a shit fit and say so and inform the authorities of that obvious crime?

I also read propostion 114 differently than you do, and therefore you state that I have my head up my ass. I suppose that since I disagree with you about that, I could say the same about you, ___ but I won't. I will say once again, that you are spreading the lie that Obama didn't support the war in Iraq. That is not an opinion about you, __ or an assumption. It's a fact.

You are assuming IKE KAY. I for one do not approve of the Bush administration, or of the policies of our elected. And I am certain that any who know me by my prior posts, are well aware of that. Nor have I read in regards to what you just posted from ANYONE who posted here. So who are you assuming about IKE?

You don't have to write Kem Patrick, I am well aware of whom you are speaking about with your unfounded assumptions. You are just spouting off for no good reason and attempting to put words which I never said nor have ever believed, to match your wild imagination. I was not showing anger, I was showing that I disagree with your opinions and the huge shoe you gave would fit many perfectly, but I'm not wearing your shoe, I just tossed it back to you to wear, for it fits you far better than I.

I also am not against change, in fact I am definently all for change, starting with the impeachment of Cheney and Bush, pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, charging Halliburton with criminal acts, restorin gour Constitiution, having decent and affordable medical care for everyone and attempting to correct the wrongs we did with Cuba, etc.

I worry about changes coming from any who distort the truth to their advantage, so that they may be the king of the hill. I also don't approve of bloggers attacking another here, and not being specific, afraaid to name names and then not answering their replys to specific items. But that's your pitiful choice IKE, whether I approve or not.

Kem, you are a whack job who sounds like they need to take a big step away from the computer. H.J. 114 is a DECLARATION OF WAR. Uninformed Obama-hating Edwards supporters like you are exactly what is wrong with this country. Be sure to thank John Edwards and Hillary Clinton for voting to INVADE IRAQ.

Even Paul O'Neill knew this was about oil and that this planning to invade and occupy Iraq began before 9/11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3387941.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

This was a war for oil, and it's insulting for you to suggest to me that millions of Americans and I who opposed this war in 2002 didn't know the SO CALLLED FACTS about Iraq's WMDs. THIS WAS NEVER ABOUT IRAQ'S WMDS IT WAS ABOUT IRAQ'S OIL. Get your head out of your ass.

Bush attacked Iraq virtually his first month in office Kem. Get real.

"Last week's US and British airstrikes outside of Baghdad have come under severe scrutiny from countries once considered part of the US' Gulf War coalition."

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/20/us.iraq/

"The White House said missile attacks against Iraqi military command and control centers south of Baghdad on Friday did not "represent an escalation in attacks against Iraq or a change in policy."

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/iraq.airstrike.03/index.html

Is that what you want us to believe Kem? Well, excuse me. I wasn't fooled then and I sure as hell am not fooled 7 years later. Hillary and Edwards' vote continues to kill thousands of Iraqis and Americans. This was never about WMDs, it was about oil. That is obvious to everyone who has any common sense.

And the fact that you continue to justify Hillary and Edward's vote is pathetic. As Paul Wolfowitz said,

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm

Even Alan Greenspan, in his latest book, notes that it's obvious this was a war for oil. Come on.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

"But it doesn't end there. Because the American people weren't just failed by a President - they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts. By a foreign policy elite that largely boarded the bandwagon for war. And most of all by the majority of a Congress - a coequal branch of government - that voted to give the President the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day. Let's be clear: without that vote, there would be no war.
Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?" - Barack Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

To those who like my words, thank you for your comments. Like many here that have lived this American dream we all have a right to defend those who would try to take us from this disaster of the presently marketed "American dream. For those who find my thinking too long and not sufficiently abusive simply pass them by. I try very hard not to offend people for their opinions they have a right to them for the short time left before this, so-called American democracy puts them in detention for speaking their truth! I find that by not using names and referring to anyone directly it allows for those with the most prejudice to float to the surface and see themselves.

For those who have injuries created by this paranoid military establishment, for whom they gave up freedom, and for whom they have laid down parts of their bodies, it is too bad for them, as for me as I once was stupidly patriotic, and believed this rubbish from Washington! But they should certainly not impugn those who did not vote for war as the record clearly shows or those that support those candidates for their truth, such as it is.

For those here who defend the policies of Washington and the candidates who clearly support most of it, you must be happy for the young people who sit with their lives smashed as a result of the war footing that the USA sits on? Or a country bankrupt as a result of it? Or children certainly left behind as a result of it? Or forty million Americans in poverty or homeless as a result of it without healthcare or veterans without shelter? Or the global hatered that the USA is subject! Or the freedom that has vanished thst we fought for!

No, I have no aoplogies for those of you here who wish to be against the winds of change. I say go for it with your rhetoric, your curses, insults and intemperance! But do not try to engage other people with your vitriol who have more enlightened opinions. Who are prepared to accept that Washington at its best is a liar's haven. Obama, like the rest of the political system is not pure but he at least recognizes that change is necessary unlike the others who have picked up the cry recognizing that Americans will no longer accept the status quo, like many of you who write here. After reading my comments, which you are not forced to read, If the shoe fits wear it and don't single yourself out by showing your anger and intemperance.

I agree, Gringo can be Okay, it depends upon the context of how it is used. Like, "Hey, get your ass out of here gringo, or, you Fuc#in gringo". I never heard the term "paddy", but different locals have a lot to do with teminology spoken in the streets.

Don't worry, KEM PATRICK, no one who has any idea of what the Nazis were would accuse people blogging on a site and disagreeing with each other of being Nazis. That's so out there, it's not worth arguing about.

FYI, I grew up in a barrio, and the insult that was used by the Mexican American kids against the white kids was "paddy", not gringo.

Oops, I forgot to mention one other very important thing you said of me IKE KAY. You say it's alright to offer opinions, but it's wrong to state that others are lying, like I did with Dougwagner. Why should I, or any other blogger not state the truth? Dougwagner is spreading Obama's lies, whether he is aware of that or not, __ he is guilty of it.

If the word "lie" offends you IKE, then I'll say, Obama is twisting the truth and distorting facts on a very important issue, in his attempt to help himself fight to win the votes necessary to become our president. That point is very important in my mind. That's what Bill Clinton said about the Obama iraq war issue also, and I fully agree with him on that, because it's true. The evidence of it all is self evident.

~IKE KAY~. Since you have a disagreement with me and my opinions, and refer to me as a Nazi type, because of my posts, let's hash it out. You know it was I who you were referring to, __ if not, correct me on that and state who it was. BTW, I also served in Vietnam, two tours, and have the wounds and missing teeth and one eye to show for it. That war, like the Iraqi war, was unjust and illegal in my mind BTW.

I'll attempt to post this as simply as possible, for you like Dougwagner, seem to have a reading comprehension problem. That's not a persoanl attack on you IKE, it's an observation, based upon your post.

The 77 of 100 US Senators who voted yes on proposition 114, which gave the President the 'authority' to use military force agaist Iraq and ( ONLY IF ABSOLUTLY NECESSARY) was not a declaration of war, __ far from it. Read the proposition 114 and attempt to understand the legal wording. ___ It was NOT a declaration of war against Iraq.

In addition, our congress was horribly misled by the unlawfully altered NIE report, before they voted on that proposition. Now, if any wish to judge the senators who voted yes, because they state they were misled and lied to, so be it, be the judge and jury. I won't pre-judge any of them for there has never been a fair trial on that issue. If any wish to judge them guilty, that is only an unfair judgment, based upon limited knowledge, __ Like, "She's a witch, burn her at the stake".

IKE KAY, this entire subject matter about the propositin 114 vote, was due to Obama's statements, that he never voted for the war and Hillary did. That is a VERY important issue for millions of voters. And millions of people believe his distortion of the truth.

Finally, the act of going to war with Iraq, was absolutly the decision and the FULL responsibility of President Bush. Don't tbe afraid to reply to me IKE. I'm not going to jump through your computer screen and attack you. Do as you please on the issue, it's still a free country and I'm not a Nazi.

I personally read them all on any thread I may find of interest, whether I like the opinions, or may disagree with some opinions. We also all know there are Neo-cons, or far to the right types shills who post here.

I have learned a great deal here at CD on many seperate and important issues.

What I love about CD is that everybody is entitled to post whatever they want, as often as they want and can dialog with whoever they want and nobody can do a thing about it. For those who don't like my posts just skip them please.

~IKE KAY~ Personally, I have never felt that I was under anyones incessant chatter here at Common Dreams, even yours, which are usually very lengthy and full of self assured opinions, somethnng you accuse others of having BTW.

If I get onto a thread and disagree with another blogger opinions, such as Dougwagner's here, who cuts and pastes his comments and loads several threads with his identical opinions concerning Obama and then refuses to accept any facts or reply to any which are presented to debate his opinions.

I will debate any here on issues and sometimes we both, or even two, three or more may get into a debate and go back and forth. You find that to be disturbing and refer to it as Nazism. You say that our freedoms are being destroyed by some who write here, perhaps you could name names and be more specific, or perhaps you would rather hide behind your words and sling your stones from afar, I say perhaps, but that is precicely what you are doing.

For example, you state some have posted here that they hold the senators blameless for the war in Iraq. I could not find such a post here and went over every single one of them. I have posted that Hillary and John Edwards were not "responsible" for the Iraqi war, with their vote on proposition 114, and if you fail to see the reasoning in that commment and opinion, come right out and say why you disagree, instead of writing from behind a wall like a SNIPER with vague accusations. You accuse others of attacking others ___ and then you do that VERY THING with a self rightious attitude. After all, you didn't name any names. You have written about yourself with your last post Ike Kay. "Mirror, mirror on the wall". __ Funny Ike.

iowablackbird February 17th, 2008 1:02 am
RSJ February 17th, 2008 8:50 am
Thank you both for your intelligent and insightful posts.

ike kay February 18th, 2008 11:46 am
Great post!

We are all under the incessant chatter of some individuals who are certain they are the only people who have any ideas. They flood this space with their self-indulgence, telling others how wrong they may be, for example holding the senators blameless for perpetuating the loss of American freedom and allowing an American despotic president to wage war.

They help us by showing their lack of understanding, they help us by showing their American imdoctrination about war issues and how the public can be controlled by the military-Industrial complex who has bought the key votes in congress for the continuation America's military agenda fuelled by their paranoia. I wrote many of these ideas before the vote to go to war with Iraq on 9/11, echoed by Obama now. The politicks of fear is an ever present government media indoctrination vehicle to keep the USA building its military might on the backs of the people. While the country, and the people who it ostensibly is there to protect go to hell.

I support those here who are not so conditioned that they support the sitting government that most of America is completely fed up with. The ideas of change embraced by more than a few of us writing here, who are opposed to the graybeards that stick with their media-indoctrination and abuse people with their ideas on this blog.

They who would accept the ugly price caused by the shopping-mall (those so called American Dreamers who continue with the status-quo Wallmart ideology that simply feathers the nests of the wealthy super class supported with the collusion of the Republican and Democratic hacks that sit in this congress sucking the people dry with the "failed policies of the past".

Yes, I would gladly jump to any change from the present burning building of American reality. I would gladly join any culture that is not in continual war, I would rather accept very much less materialism for a peaceful, less stressful life. All of the above, rather than support the Hillary, Edwards and other congressional, ideas of defending the American dream with war continually stripping the people of life with these paranoid military delusions for American safety.

Militaristic adventures supported with dillusions of safety take from the people of their health, wealth, work, infrastructure, homes, education and so many other parts of life that are so much more important and become the very reasons that support the American Dream.

Terrorism, is exacerbated by this paranoia, it has increased in possibility not diminished according to most international think-tanks and poles. It is time to stop! The people who flog their worn-out patriotism here are of a type that should give some others a chance to have their ideas heard without their negativism and the abuse they espouse so well.

I spent a long time in the military fighting for a war against the so-called domino effect, to halt the spread of communism. The enemy than, also the figment of a military, that needed an enemy and an industry TO CONTINUE BUILDING WEAPONS. The enemy of the time has since become American trading partners all the USA was ever interested. They are still Communists and it does not seem that they infected the world with their ideas nor does China another trading partner.

However, there are black walls in Washington covered with names of people whose lives were destroyed with families that still grieve for them as well as the children who had no fathers for these "failed ideas of the past"!

Those here who wish to project their values have a right to do so but not with the allegations and complaints against others who also have different point of view and ideas which are not lies but different oppinions. These abusive people in this blog remind me of the Nazi regime rather than understanding that freedom requires the excahnge if ideas rather than indoctrinated principals.

The freedoms that Americans have come to adore is now in the process of being dismantled with the help of some people who write here and a congress which Obama speaks against. Yes, change would be welcome regardless of the risks, they cant BE ANY GREATER THAN WHAT THE USA HAS EXPERIENCED THESE PAST EIGHT YEARS.

unfortunately i am writing too late to get any comments. but i want to say that the commondreams responders should check out the folks at information clearing house. i wonder why there is such a different between the two groups.
the responders here almost unanimously refuse to see aipac's role in US politics. to me you all are shockingly dense, that you can't see the obvious elephant in the room

Of course the fainting spells may very well be part of his well orchestrated act ~Armchair. He's a good ol boy who cares for us little people. It happened once and he stood there on the stage and calmed everyone down and that was alright, he looked good, he was taking control of the situation. Twice? __ Three times, __ four, __ five, __six that we know of. Hmmmmmmmm?????? __ Yeah __ sure. If Obama has orchastrated those acts, then he's a charlaton and if he's elected, ___ look out. Before any jump on any bandwagon, they should be VERY well informed. What bothers me is, our neo-con press likes him. They like him far too much. We cannot trust our press and media anymore.

woah! ...one more thing, jus found this and THIS IS BIZARRE... obama has someone near him "faint" at alot of his rallies, he then directs medical care and supplies water to the "faintee" while in the middle of his speech. he does it like 6 different times, recently, and its all on video. its pretty fkn weird, is he faking this shit for some reason??? if he is, its nutzo. this is a fkn TRIP. check it: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/48404.html

aha! so HEREs the perfect example of the kind of small nothing-changes obama will bring as he stands for the dem-machine. bush brought millions of small legislative horrors with him, now obama will bring tons of SMALL legislative "good" things, and the horrors and good will balance out as NOTHING. except the war. the war people... the wars. obama WILL continue to pursue the war "process". so actually he will do more than jus-nuttin. ..more war. the junior senator-who-noone-really-knows will have lots to prove to those who question his hawk-ability. maybe when he continues the wars, he will get only good press of the shallowest-type as he does now, and always has. jus like bush did.. huh..thats weird isnt it?

anyway, heres the reposting of the small nothing good-things we can expect in small doses from mr "hope", who btw, has my vote.

gov10. S.115 : A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Finance

or 16. S.674 : A bill to require accountability and enhanced congressional oversight for personnel performing private security functions under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 2/16/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: Senate Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 2/16/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
or
7. S.692 : A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report on health care quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 2/27/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 2/27/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

18. S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 2/28/2007) Cosponsors (34)
Committees: Senate Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 2/28/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

19. S.737 : A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 in order to measure, compare, and improve the quality of voter access to polls and voter services in the administration of Federal elections in the States.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/1/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Rules and Administration
Latest Major Action: 3/1/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

I live in an area that is 50% Hispanic, not far from the Mexican border. Hispances here don't use the word Gringo when "Gringos" are present

Well, Mexicans in Mexico do use it all the time, even in front of Americans and it is nothing more than a colloquial form for American. Hispanics also use "americano" in reference to Americans though this term is never used in Mexico. It is another case of when in Rome, do as the Romans.

Americans in Mexico use "Gringo" (informal) and "estadounidense" (formal), never "americano". They too do as the Romans. Google "gringo mexico" and see for yourself. Look it up in Wikipedia.

I also don't remember Barbara Ehrenreich saying she was a socialist, just a progressive

She was (is?) a member of the DSA party and her profile on Wikipedia says she is a socialist.

people I've met from Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela and Guatemala would definitely view Obama as a black American man, not as a dark-skinned South American Latino.

When in Rome do as the Romans. My point was that people who look like Obama (mixed raced) are not considered blacks (one drop rule) in Europe or in Latin America, so Ehrenreich assertion that "An antiwar black President with an Arab-sounding name: See, we're not so bad after all, world!" is totally off mark because 1) the world does not see him as black, 2) even if he were, he is still a mainstream American politician, and 3) he has not addressed issues of empire such as bases all around the world, torture, Guantánamo, enduring bases in Iraq, and outrageous military expenditure.

I can understand that Ehrenreich is enthusiastic about a man not totally white becoming president given the US' history, but to project that enthusiasm to the rest of the world (Brazil has a cabinet member with dreadlocks, so there!) and that, as she, we conclude that the US will no longer threaten non-nuclear states with nuclear annihilation ("not bad") is US-centric.

BTW Dougwagner, Riverman is funny when he writes in support of Obama. ___ You are not funny. You may not realize you are spreading lies,__ but you are.

~LUPITA~ I live in an area that is 50% Hispanic, not far from the Mexican border. Hispances here don't use the word Gringo when "Gringos" are present, unless they are angry with a white person. If they use the term, it is usually in a derogatory context. I'm certain you are aware of that. I don't use the words spicks, etc. either. I wrote those words in a question to you.

~RSJ~. Talk about not makng any sense. What Obama said about his decision if he would have voted yes or no on resolution 114, is nothing short of political grab-ass and political ambition. He said THAT and then uses Hillary's vote to malinger her. That is hypocritical to the max on Obama's part. And that is exactly why Bill Clinton called him on the issue and he should have. So should our "FREE" press and media.

That is your opinion ~DOUGWAGNER~. My opinion is, you are wrong, as is any who think that. ___ Bush pushed for the war with Iraq ever since he was first elected and is our only "Commander In Chief". Hillary and Edwards never pushed or advocated going to war. And no, Hillary never apologized for her vote, she voted as she felt was necessary at the time and her vote was based upon the intelligence allowed to the Senate for that situation. And the intelligence was a lie.

They only voted to give the President, the authority to use military force against Iraq IF absolutely necessary.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld conspired to have their war, Colin Powell advised Bush on several occasions, that it would be a serious mistake to go to war with Iraq and that if he attacked Iraq, he would own it and be fully responsible for that country afterwards. (Powell's words.)

Powell was then given the ALTERED NIE report to brief to the UN and to our Congress, which he did on a nationally televised program. Powell was unaware Bush had the NIE report altered to state that Saddam DID have WMDs and had purchased uranium from Africa. Those were outright lies and Bush knew full well they were lies. Many people had doubts about Saddam but the annual NIE report is the "Bible" for the intelligence community. It must be accurate and totally believeable. Well, not the one Tenent altered to Bush's wishes.

NO DOUWAGNER, Hillary and Edwards, or no other Senators were 'responsible' for those lies, or the ensuing military buildup and attack on Iraq. Bush made that decision and he was the President and the Commander In Chief of our armed forces. The Senate voted to give Bush the authority ot use military force if it ever became necessary. ___ It never was NECESSARY. __ That, Dougwagner, is the issue.

And DOUGWAGNER, you keep posting your comments in support of Obama, which is perfectly fine for any to support Obama if they so choose. But by using your twisted posts here as an excuse as to why Hillary, or Edwards were not fit to be elected, because they went to war, is not honorable. That sir is a lie and you are guilty of spreading it at least 50 times here in the past weeks. So to tell me, "to get over myself", is just your soplistic manner of attempting to show superiority and self assured knowledge with your horribley flawed opinions.

Lupita, you sure seem to not know much about America -- if Obama stated he was a socialist (and he isn't), he'd be finished as a national candidate. I also don't remember Barbara Ehrenreich saying she was a socialist, just a progressive -- they aren't exactly the same thing in this country.

I also disagree with you about Latin America; I don't know where you are from, but the people I've met from Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela and Guatemala would definitely view Obama as a black American man, not as a dark-skinned South American Latino.

Yes, and it would be nice to get rid of those little boxes that ask for your race or ethnicity.

Kem you are wrong. Iraq is not Bush's full responisiblity. It is also John Edwards and Hillary Clinton's.

Obama oppossed the war from the beginning and has led the fight to call for timelines in a Republican-dominated Senate and Whitehouse.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061120-a_way_forward_i/index.php

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/obama.comment/index.html

And BTW, you're right. He's not JFK or FDR.

Barack Obama is the next President of the United States and THE CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. Get over yourself.

I have been around enough to know that notions such as race vary considerably by culture and that, definitely, in Latin America and in Europe people who look like Obama are not considered black. I have never been to Africa but I would assume he would not be considered black there either. Remember, the "one drop rule" is a Gringo thing, a product of your history. So is checking little boxes to state your "race/ethnicity".

he has been consistently progressive in his views

I thought Barbara Ehrenreich was a socialist. Has Obama ever mentioned the word?

Kem wrote: "Well RSJ, one one hand you defend Obama for his votes to keep funding the war, and a paragraph later explain why he was against the war. Those reasons for his yes vote to fund the war are explainable and defensible for Obama, but they are wrong for Hillary or Edwards. Hmmmmmm."

Kem, this doesn't make any sense -- yes, Hillary and Edwards were wrong for voting to give Bush the power to go to war with Iraq; Edwards apologized for that vote; Hillary has not. And we don't know how Obama would have voted in 2002, since, as you point out, he wasn't in the US Senate at the time. In 2004, in support of the Dem presidential candidate, Obama said he didn't know how he would vote on the war if he had been a US Senator because Dem candidate John Kerry had voted for the war and he didn't want to undercut him and hand ammunition to the GOP to embarrass him. If he had not supported Kerry, there are some here who would, I have no doubt, now gripe that his failure to back Kerry was what cost Kerry the election. You have made up your minds to be losers, and add to the general notion that liberal progressives are a bunch of losers. Sign me up with the folks who would like to have a sucessful progressive movement and win for a change -- it's not starry-eyed rock star worship, simply the recognition that we have the best progressive political candidate since John Kennedy, who can bring people into the movement -- in other words, he's preaching beyond the choir, and getting results. I guess to some that's a sort of apostasy, rather than the reality -- we need someone with the ability to appeal to a cross-section of Americans, and Obama can do that. The ardent Obama-haters would look a gift horse in the mouth and reject it because it has a piece of straw between its teeth. I wonder what the self-righteous Obama-haters would have said about JFK when he was campaigning for president -- he certainly wasn't very liberal then, but his oratory and style helped spark a major shift to liberalism in the 1960s which resulted in civil rights legislation, improved medical care for seniors, programs that raised people out of poverty, and women's rights.

That's right, Deran, follow Cynthia McKinney all the way to victory for the Straight Talk Express and feel really good about yourself because you helped put McCain in the White House. I asked this earlier and no one answered: is McKinney even on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral vote?

Lupita, you should get out more -- Barack Obama, on face value, would be considered black in every part of the world. As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, and I'm not sure you do, either -- I know of no one who 'admires' Obama because he's 'exotic'. If you bothered to read up on the subject before forming an opinion, you might know he has been consistently progressive in his views since college and has gotten some things done when elected to office, and that's what attracts progressives like Barbara Ehrenreich.

What does the term "Gringo" mean to you LUPITA?

Obama is a Gringo. In Spanish, Gringo means of the United States. It has absolutely nothing to do with Gringo "race/ethnicity" and does not necessary have to refer to a person. One can speak of Gringo cars, Gringo cities, Gringo fashion, etc.

You may call me whatever racially offensive term you wish since you would be offending nobody except yourself for using such terms. I understand that Gringos are still obsessed with race given that your state-sponsored racial segregation system is so recent that you still see evil racists lurking everywhere, but please understand that the rest of the world (with the exception of South Africa) does not share your recent past, does not see Obama as black, and even if he were black, does not see him as "different" in the sense that he will atone for the sins of the white race. Those are quaint Gringo notions that are the product of your particular history. We do not even see Obama as a Democrat, just as another contender who does not question the empire, that is, your typical Gringo politician.

~DOUGWAGNER~ I tend to ignore your lengthy posts which are truths, half truths and distortions of the whole truth. I will reply, beause some may listen to your ranting and there is a flip side to every coin.

First of all, I'll answer your snotty remark to me. why should I thank Hillary and Edwards for their vote, or thank the other 75 Senators who voted yes on 114? Attacking Iraq was a disterous blunder and Bush insured the very important NIE report, which was given to Congress prior to their vore, was illegally altered, the NIE report was a lie and the only ones who knew it had been altered, were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Tenent and some CIA operatives.

That exerpt of resolution 114 you posted, is written so that it can mean many things, primarily it gave Bush full authority to do as he damn well pleased when it came to Iraq. Attacking Iraq was Bush's FULL responsibility.

Indeed you are correct on this point Dougwagner. Bush's word and his pledges, which he verbally gave to our Congress members, are not printed in that Resolution. Bush had stated several times, he would NEVER go to war with Iraq until AFTER the UN team, led by Hans Bliss had completed their inspections. He also said war with Iraq was a last resort. __ He lied,__ and 77 congress people didn't know he would lie and decieve them. They took his word, he was the President of the United States. __They erred. __ Had George Tenent been a brave and loyal American, he would have informed the world, that Bush forced him to alter the NIE report. There would have been no war with Iraq and Bush/Cheney would have been impeached.

However, that is history and it is not altered history, as you have claimed several times during the past thirty days. The point here on this thread is, Obama didn't vote yes on the Resolution 114. That is because he was not a US Senator then and could not vote yes or no on it. He has stated since, if he had been in the senate, he is not sure how he would have voted on Resolution 114 at the time. Obama has voted yes to fund the war every time since he was elected to the senate. He's playing games with words. He's a smart politician. Obama is not what he is professing to be. He's no JFk, or a Roosevelt. He is the best orator, I have ever seen or heard.

"Let's take seriously what he offers, which is "change.""

Uh, oh. You know we are in real trouble when Barbara Ehrenreivh is worshiping at the American Idol of Barack Obama.

Well, I'll add her name to the very long list of people I will be sending out boxes of kleenex to in abt two years form now when all these Obama believers find they have been gridfted. Grifted back t the stone age.

I think the historical reality is that Obama, if elected, and when it comes out that he is a hack like the rest of his former-Clinto staff, all these zero-attention span kids that are the core of the Obama Childrens Crusade will be turned off to politics forever. And thus all you hysterical Left intellectuals that are riding the Obama bandwagon, will be guilty as hell of being instrumental in wrecking it.

On the other hand, I will be hosting a huge schaudenfreude banquet where the rest of us can gorge on their misery! Mmmmmmm....

Yeah Edwards had a very Good platform and an excellent message. Of course Obama wants to listen to Edwrards advisors RSJ, it helps with his well delivered speeches. He isn't stupid.

Excellent point SHADA.

Be sure to thank John Edwards and Hillary Clinton for voting for to invade Iraq Kem.

Clinton and Edwards did not vote for more inspectors. They voted for war. In fact, the resolution that Clinton and Edwards voted for has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.

What H.J. Resolution 114 "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" actually says:

"Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf

"There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush's war, it's all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Or that we would have gotten Iraq right if we went in with more troops, or if we had a different proconsul instead of Paul Bremer, or if only there were a stronger Iraqi Prime Minister.

These are the easy answers. And like most easy answers, they are partially true. But they don't tell the whole truth, because they overlook a harder and more fundamental truth. The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalog of many mistakes - it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought…

Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…

We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.

That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama

"Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war."
"Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were "enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html

Hillary and the 2002 NIE

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/25/204032.aspx

"Bill Clinton's Own Fairy Tales on Obama's Views on Iraq"

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14219.html

"Hillary Clinton on Iraq"

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802

"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time… I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

"As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam." -Bill Clinton, March 18, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html

"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."- Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

"During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq "from the beginning" - a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html

EDIT?

What does the term "Gringo" mean to you LUPITA? Isn't it the same to call a white person a Gringo, as it is to use the "N" word for a black person? Would you be offended if I called you a Spic, or a beaner, or a halfbreed wetback?

Well RSJ, one one hand you defend Obama for his votes to keep funding the war, and a paragraph later explain why he was against the war. Those reasons for his yes vote to fund the war are explainable and defensible for Obama, but they are wrong for Hillary or Edwards. Hmmmmmm.

White Gringos will be atoned and redeemed by somebody who only in the US passes for black? I though Ehrenreich was a socialist! She seems like a teenage groupie to me. Just like teenagers imagine themselves liberated by admiring some drug-crazed, noisy rock star, so some "socialists" seem to be rebelling by admiring somebody who only parochial Gringos would consider exotic (black, raised in Hawaii, stint in Indonesia).

Nah, voting for a guy with "different" demographic characteristics will not do the trick. The system is the system, I though a socialist, even a Gringo socialist, would know that.

I live in Pennsylvania. Our Primary is in April. Clinton leads Obama here by double digits. Reports are that she leads him in Ohio and Texas by double digits as well. I am sick of left,right and "mainstream" media making declarations about who has already won an election that is still ongoing.

Tailcap, you returned from the mountains without any stone tablets -- just some quotes from your pizza man? WTF?! :) (Congratulations, BTW, considering your bio, on your conversion to liberalism -- I've met several vets who have also 'seen the light.')

Seriously, I don't think Obama is anything more than a very smart politician who is fostering a progressive movement, as did Franklin Roosevelt, to force a gradual shift back to populism on the Democratic Party. Once the congressional Dems are confronted with millions of voters who want change, they'll either vote the right way or lose their cushy jobs. Eugene V. Debs and the early 20th century progressives had some great ideas, but it took a smart politician like FDR to make them law. Obama has learned from Kucinich and Nader what doesn't work, and he's running not to make a statement, but to win. In pursuit of that goal, he has to attract millions of people to vote for him, and that's what his carefully-crafted campaign has done -- he's gotten people involved with politics in this country who didn't give a rip before he came along. Is that a bad thing? That's how progress is really effected in this country. I'd rather have four years of even a tepid Obama than four years of a terrible McCain. And. yes, I'll be the first to criticize him when I think he's done the wrong thing -- that's what democracy and free speech are all about -- not lining up behind a leader, marching in lockstep, and keeping your mouth shut. That's for the dwindling Republican base that disgusts most of America these days.

Re: Tailcap: "I have not gotten a satisfactory explanation for why Obama voted to fund the war and has not talked about reducing the outrageous military spending. Don't even try because you can't."

I will anyway: He's a savvy politician and this is political cover, since the funding bill was going to pass anyway. If he consistently voted against funding it, the GOP could scream "You voted against our troops!" He didn't want to be caught in that bind, even as a senator running for reelection in Illinois. He is also a freshman senator and, as such, must sometimes follow the lead of the Senate Majority Leader, in this case hapless clown Harry Reid, in order to get anything done on other progressive legislation that has a chance of passing. He has said he will increase military spending to adequately fund better medical treatment for the troops, as well as an increase in pay to help their families.

Clyde Paige, when Obama made his anti-Iraq War speech in 2002, he was taking a political risk -- most of America supported Bush at the time, and his BS wars. Many Illinois Dems did not show up at that demonstration in downtown Chicago, but Obama did, and never backed off his position against the war in either his state Senate or US Senate campaigns. I know because I live in Illinois and followed those campaigns. Obama didn't crumple in GOP attacks in Illinois, and he hasn't folded from Hillary's slime. There is this assumption that the guy just fell off of the back of a turnip truck -- in fact he managed to prosper in the rough and corrupt world of Illinois politics and get some things done. He also racked up the highest vote count in Illinois history -- 70 percent in the last election, and many of those votes came from the mainly white and conservative central and southern portions of the state. He's smart and he has his eyes open, so don't assume he isn't ready for whatever the GOP may throw at him. If you think he has no substance, you should read more about him and stop wallowing in your ignorant talking points. Some of it is right in this thread.

Kem, here's something just for you: Obama is listening to some of Edwards' economic advisers and said this last Wednesday night in Wisconsin:

"(When) I am president, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate -- we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."
-- Barack Obama in Janesville, WI, Feb. 13, 2008, as quoted by The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=284664

Yes, Palmeres, as Kem said, join right in, but I suggest popping open a bottle of something 'spirited' first.

tailcap,

i respect ramons opinion and im glad you asked him the question. i have asked people who cynthia mckinney is and they look at me like i'm from mars. i have respect for mckinney's staunch anti war position, her call for impeachment and her advocacy for just causes in the congress, i just don't believe she will be elected because the common person can't identify her. i respect ramon's opinion about republicans i just believe he's wrong; based on random conversations i've had with republicans who haven't voted dem in 20 years (not exaggerating). i don't think they're lying, shucking and jiving me. the reason they support obama is he's authentic, he conveys the idea of authenticity that's one characteristic voters look for. john mccain is the hillary clinton of the center-right party. they see him as a sellout, not authentic, and many of them are starting to see the consequences of the iraq war, the short-sightedness of their earlier convictions. they don't like mccain, bush doesn't like mccain, the crazy evangelists don't like mccain. republican voter turnout will flounder if mccain is the candidate. with low repub voter turnout, exceedingly high democratic turnout and with independents and a fraction of the repubs seeking authenticity/anti iraq war obama could win. the polls as of tonight (realclearpoltics.com) are inconclusive in head to head comparisons (obama up 3, clinton down 2). i don't know what will happen, alot will happen before today and election day in november. OH, TX, PA the craziness of superdelegates, a convention. nevertheless i'd say the tide is with obama. yesterday 2/15 pelosi restated the fact: no MI or FL delegates to be seated w/out new caucus or primary and the conviction that superdelegates do not override the will of the voters in the primaries/caucuses.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080215_pelosi_warns_superdelegates/

"Nancy Pelosi, who is not only one of the highest-ranking members of the Democratic Party but the chair of its approaching national convention, has weighed in on two of the most controversial issues looming over the presidential nomination. Superdelegates, Pelosi said, should not overrule the will of the voters, and the disputed delegations from Michigan and Florida "can't make the difference because then we would have no rules."

about military spending, it's about funding vetrens, it's about withdrawing from iraq while not further destabilizing the region. (i want war factories closed and retooled, i also will demonstrate the first opportunity i can against war if obama were to wield military power against others). regardless of our idealistic avatars, one of these 3 people will likely be president. mccain will use military force with limited diplomacy.

I watched Obama give a speech in Wisconsin C span sat evening. He got game. He is good!

~Hi PALMERES~, welcome to the fun site. About half of us are crazy, most of the the sane ones are stupid. The few left are excellent teachers and many can't spell very well and use horrible grammer. That's fine with me though, I for one have learned a great deal of good things about many diverse issues here at Common Dreams. Hang around and join in the fun, it's obvious that you have a good sense of humor,___ you need it here.

Oh, Ok ~Tailcap~, well I answered it with my post at 11:54pm, or ~Clyde Paige~ answered it also.

All of the DING DING, AND DONG DONG joking aside RIVERMAN, Obama did vote to continue funding the war and occupation of Iraq and if the senate had voted not to continue funding it, the troops and Halliburton's troops, the Blackwter gangs, would have been pulled out of there. That would be supporting our troops.

If Obama was so rightiously against the war, he should have voted NO, but he didn't, he votes YES. Also, he makes the big issue that he didn't vote for the war in the first place. He couldn't have voted, he wasn't a US Senator then and later has stated, he doesn't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate. Bill Clinton finally called Obama on that distortion of the truth and with full justification, no matter what you or our press says.

KEM PATRICK February 16th, 2008 11:54 pm
Thanks for the response I too am a little confused about our conversation.

See:tailcap February 16th, 2008 12:54 pm
Where is Mr. Obama on military spending? WHERE IS HE??????

I am referring to:
KEM PATRICK February 16th, 2008 1:11 pm
Where is he ~Tailcap~? ___ He's practicing his next speech. He is really the best ever at that, and don't criticize Obama like Bill Clinton did, concering the Iraq war issue and how he also voted. ___ That's racial.

Oh my god, I'm new to CD but this series of posts reads like a really spicy Jerry Springer show. We have 10,000 word posts, Obama compared to Jesus of Nazereth, shoving things up tailpipes! Excellent work, people.

The guy on the corner I buy pizza from, Ramon, told me the Republicans want Obama to win. He says America loves to hate Hillary. Ramon says that Republicans are pouring money into Obama because they want him to win. They want to run against a black guy with Hussein as a middle name that admits to having used drugs. He says McCain will end up winning. I can't believe Ramon is right but Ramon is a really smart guy and he know a lot about a lot of things. I hope Ramon is wrong.

Hi ~Tailcap~ I don't know why you are asking me that question, I could not find where I mentioned it. But if I did, ~Clyde Paige~ answered your question quite well, about Obama and his voting for the Iraqi war, about five comments above this one.

That by the way, was what Bill Clinton said about Obama, he claiming he didn't vote for the war and Hillary and Edwards did. Then, incredible as it was, because Bill Clinton said that, he was termed a racist by several of the Black leaders in the country. You rightfully criticize Obama and if it's the truth, you're automatically playing the race card. ___ Bull-shit.

There was nothng racial about what Bill Clinton said, it was the truth and factual, but then people start claiming Bill Clinton played the race card and a great number of people, and our FREE PRESS of course, bought into that lie, without thinking about what Clinton actually said and why it was said and what he said was nothing but the truth. Obama never to my knowledge, mentioned race about it. He didn't have to, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, etc, did the race issue talking and the press and media made both Bill and Hillary look bad.

There should be no racial issues, Obama is a good American man, that's it. Race, or genderm or religion, should never be an issue. I don't happen to favor Obama for the presidency. I don't favor Hillary either, I sure as hell don't favor McCain, so I'll vote for the Democrat.

We can bitch about Bill Clinton's presidency till dooms day, everything was less than perfect during his term. Of course very importantly, Clinton had a Republican controlled Congress. We didn't owe China nine trillion dollars, weren't having an illegal war and occupation in Iraq, had a surplus in the budget and oil was selling for less than $30 a barrel when Clinton left office. Our telephones weren't being tapped illegally and the Constitution was not just a G-damn piece of paper, plus a few other important things, like how Bush handeled Katrina and the no bid contracts to Haliburton, etc.

Harold Ickes, a Clinton operative, said that Clinton will win due to the superdelegates and that it doesn't matter if Obama wins the popular vote. He is also reversing himself on the status of Michigan and Florida. As a member of the DNC he supported the decision to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates. Now as a Clinton operative he wants the delegates to go to Clinton even though there was no campaign in these state and Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan. If the "party leaders" give the election to Clinton even though Obama has won the popular vote I will not vote or support any Democrat in any election for the next 40 years.

If anyone doubted Hillary Clinton after her disastrous Iraq war vote, followed by her near-disastrous Iran war vote last Fall, her position on Florida's delegates leaves no doubt that she is not the stuff of which good Presidents are made.

I thought we decided in 2000 we weren't going to let anyone steal any more Presidential elections in Florida.

Clinton's comment: ``Both Michigan and Florida should count because these are two states we have to carry,'' Clinton said. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afMu2IHmjtdo&refer=home

The logic of Clinton's statement is brazen, disappointing and reflective of her campaign. It's fine to break all the rules in a major way when needed to win, she is saying.

Florida and Michigan broke the rules of the Democratic Party. They scheduled their primaries earlier than allowed. As a result, their results were disqualified. The Democratic nominees were told not to campaign there. They were told Florida wouldn't count. They didn't campaign there. This was a big deal.

Unlike Clinton, Obama and Edwards followed the rules. Obama and Edwards did not campaign in those states. Obama and Edwards even took their names off the ballots in Michigan.

Now Clinton apparently is willing to swing low to garner more votes to bolster her waining campaign. Her tactic is in direct defiance of the Democratic Party, which disqualified the results in these Florida and Michigan.

This is not the stuff of leadership. Hillary Clinton has tried a lot of desperate things in this campaign, like the tearing up, fearmongering, and race-baiting statements in New Hampshire when she was on the rocks. Using her ex-President husband as her hit man. And all the rest. It's no wonder that the Democratic Party, other Democratic politicians, and frequently Democratic officials in Bill Clinton's Administration did not do well and Bill's legacy was the Republicans claiming both houses of Congress and the Executive.

In contrast, Obama does more than obey the rules, which for him are a floor, not a ceiling. In a major example, he does not take money directly from lobbyists or corporations. Clinton on the other hand has taken lots of money from special interests while claiming, amazingly, the money won't affect her.

Bush, Clinton, Bush steals Florida, Clinton tries to steal Florida. This is not a smear. None of my comments about Clinton are. They are the facts.

kloro writes:
"Obama is clearly the candidate most likely to get our guns out of Iraq, and this must from the standpoint of simple morality be the defining issue in choosing the next president. but what does Obama intend to do about our cruel occupation of the whole ME?"

obama will do whatever aipac lets him do.
still i would rather try to see obama work around the aipac stranglehold.
mizz hillary it seems considers aipac her mentors, not her stranglers

Riverman101: Obama can say he was not for the war but he wasn't a senator so he had no vote. Obama has voted Yes to fund the war everytime George Bush has ask for his billions.If people are silly enough to nominate Obama you haven't seen anything yet until the republican's start tearing him apart.Obama is showing his thin skin in some of the debates so he is not only unprepared to take the heat from the republican's he is the most unqualified of the 4 running to be president.You people for Obama think his jive is so great when in fact he says change but tells you nothing about how or what he would change all talk and no substance. We've had 7 years of disaster with moron Bush Obama would be just as bad.

KEM PATRICK: "concerning the Iraq war issue and how he also voted" I don't understand your explanation regarding why Obama voted to fund the war.

dougnwagner:
Yea baby! Yea! I love the enthusiasm you youth have for Obama. In that respect he is truly a wonderful Godsend. I hope all the Obamist are right and that's the truth. I fully respect and admire that you are the first in your family to get a law degree and I think you are really bright. Right on!

I am older and much more jaded of course. I've seen more than a few hopes come and go. Time will tell. I just feel he not all you think he is. I doubt we are in for big changes if he wins. But what the hell do I know? If he turns out the way I think he will it will be you here blogging about wanting to get rid of Obama in four years.

When I was 20-something, a US Marine, and naive as all hell I voted TWICE for Ronald Reagan and in my later twenties I worked for the military industrial complex at Hughes Aircraft Co. in El Segundo CA. I quit that job as I morphed into a liberal in my thirties.

I have changed a lot since and have drifted waaaay over to the left. I am sure as things play out you may change your views too. For now I hope you are right, not me, because Kucinich or a socialist have about as much chance of winning as the snowball I was tossing at my daughter today up in the mountains has of surviving in hell. It's going to be Obama or Clinton period.

p.s. I have not gotten a satisfactory explanation for why Obama voted to fund the war and has not talked about reducing the outrageous military spending. Don't even try because you can't.

p.s.s. Keep it up kid, and maybe YOU can run for president some day.

LETS face it,obama's spellbinding assurance in his selma speech that 90% of the work in achieving racial justice has been done implies that the other 10% would be accomplished by electing him president.its also as irrational as anything the boy king said as a build up to the occupation of iraq.exit boy king -welcome the prince of wishful thinking.maybe tony brown is available to be the young man's running mate.i understand 'ol booker t washington died a few years back.

God Bless Barack Obama. I am beginning to think the man is the only saviour for the United States and our hope. The Republicans seem to be a bunch of raving lunatics hell bent on taking over the world, the Democrats are divided between Hillary Clinton, who for all her charisma seems to be a political opportunist who would say or do almost anything in order to achieve power. Barack Obama is the man for America and I genuinely believe that he can achieve for the US what Australia's erudite Kevin Rudd did for his nation.

This is the best summation of the Obama phenomenon I've read yet. It's just too bad we had to have 16 years of the country being driven into the ground by two childish Baby Boomer presidents before someone like him could even have a chance.

I've heard McCain, Clinton and Obama speak. McCain sounds like he's speaking to the patients at a military convalescence home, Clinton speaks as if she's addressing the board of directors of some corporation but Obama tells us that we can change the direction this country is heading and that we are the ones that need to change it. In one of the most inspiring speeches that I have heard since JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you" speech, he said "We are the ones we are waiting for" which means that he can't do anything without us. I believe that we (progressives) have an excellent opportunity to put someone in the White House who will actually listen us. On the other hand, if Clinton does manage to get the nomination and win the general election it would be a vast improvement over Bush-Cheney Junta.

Well said dougnwagner!

Yes, The Green party is a mess and so was Greenpeace when I was involved with them but despite this problem what they do for all of us is superb. They offer a clear choice. But like this blog it is a mess of individuals without "PARTY CONTROL" in itself that kind of anarchy is a two edged sword but it allows for different points of view,
Isn't that what democracy is and the political parties of this country are not? However Barak Obama could control the Green Party mechanisms since he has the populist vote, unlike Nader, should that become necessary to put the Democrats in their place. Each day however it looks like they will not vote for Hillary, a good thing.

Obama is clearly the candidate most likely to get our guns out of Iraq, and this must from the standpoint of simple morality be the defining issue in choosing the next president. but what does Obama intend to do about our cruel occupation of the whole ME?

Obama is certainly not Jesus of Nazareth.

BUT...

IF...

Jesus ---

(now dressed in a suit, and this round appearing to be of another, or mixed race)

--- were a actially candidate for U.S. President, I would think that he would receive many comments similar to ones that have been made above. So many people would fail to see who he was, and would only be able to react as they always have - by pigeon-holing him within outworn categories and seeing not the man, but only their own past experience, and knee-jerk preconceptions befouled by bitterness and (admittedly well-earned) cynicism.

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. I can't wait to get back from the mountains to read them. Gotta go.

TheLorax: "We live in a society where the media is controlled, the Constitution is snubbed, people are put into concentration camps to be tortured, and our phones are wiretapped."

Obama has promised to end torture, restore habeas corpus, close Gitmo and make the government obey the law on wiretapping. If you took the trouble to listen to his speeches or read his website, you'd already know that.

TheLorax: "All my hopes, my fortune, and my life are in this country. Obama lacks the qualifications necessary to be hired for this position and will not get my vote. If he wins, I honestly hope he will do well and make a positive change. If he does, I will consider voting for him on his second term."

So Hillary and McCain HAVE the qualifications for the office -- or perhaps you think Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney will come riding up on a big stallion to save the day. Either way, you're dreaming. I'm glad you hope Obama does well if he wins -- thanks a bunch! With enough 'liberal' voters like you, we'll have four years of President McCain continuing Bush's policies -- let's see how your hopes, fortune and life are doing then, and don't forget to pat yourself on the back for your ideological purity. If you're lucky, maybe you'll have another chance to vote for Obama in 2012, if you aren't in a GOP re-education camp or living on the street by then.

Frank: "Just remember these words when ya find it hard to believe BO is nothing more than a pretty-talkin friend of the neonuts, elite and Big Corp: Mayor C. Ray Nagin."

Nearly a good point, Frank, except one thing: Nagin was a REPUBLICAN before he switched parties to run for mayor of NOLA. Obama was never a Republican and never supported the GOP. Also, Obama passed up an opportunity to go right from Harvard to a cushy well-paying job with a law firm. Instead, he went to the poor South Side of Chicago and started organizing people to stand up for their rights, both with city hall and big corporations. Is this what a 'neonut elitist' does?

I'm glad Dougnwagner posted some of Obama's positions on the issues here, for those of you who criticize him for being an empty gasbag selling nothing but hope and change without any policies or history to back it up.

McDee, I'm with you: I have voted for Nader and Green Party candidates in the past but, this time, I think we have a candidate who may not be perfect but can inspire the country and lead a progressive movement against Bush conservatism. It would also be nice to win for a change.

Where is he ~Tailcap~? ___ He's practicing his next speech. He is really the best ever at that, and don't criticize Obama like Bill Clinton did, concering the Iraq war issue and how he also voted. ___ That's racial.

tailcap,

If you can't kill the message impugn the integrity of the messenger. Hacks like you are why this country is falling apart at the seams. Stick this up your tailpipe.

I worked at the Elder-Beerman distribution center in Fairborn, Ohio, at the end of the 1990s as a temporary worker 6 days a week at 39 hours and minimum wage.

1340 Dayton-Yellow Springs Rd
Fairborn, OH 45324

You can google this. I no longer work there. I am working on an education in Florida to become the first person in my family with a law degree.

And I know damn well what deindustrialization has done to the Midwest. My father was a UAW member for 35 years at International Harvester, (now in Mexico), in Springfield, Ohio. Having worked at that distribution center, having friends who have worked at others, and having most of my family in that part of the state, I know damn well about the America the Clintons have routinely sold out and left behind.

And I was still sick and tired of the derogatory holier-than-thou left wing nonsense I hear thrown at Barack Obama when I got up this morning. I am still sick of hearing people sitting at a world socialist web site computer table in a loft apartment over America's working class reality insulting my intelligence, my life experience working as a 6 day a week manual laborer for these modern day fieflords who run the factories and distribution centers of America, and my hopes and dreams for a world that Bill and Hillary Clinton not only sold out in the 1990s, but continue to mortgage on our future with their racist theatrics in South Carolina to divide and marginalize the American working class. Cynics like that are the reason America is falling behind just as much as the Corporate mouthwash that advertises erectile dysfunction. After all, there must be some gullible group of infantile people out there buying it instead of FIGHTING FOR THE CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

Barack Obama is the one candidate who can lead us in the 21st Century, not the 20th Century, where under Bill Clinton jobs were left in the Rustbelt, where I grew up, packed up and shipped to China, Mexico, and other countries where workers are paid scrabble in return for Mexico letting us push family farmers off their farms with subsidized Archer Daniels Midland corn that couldn't find its way into our french fries and Coke. Bill Clinton's America, where instead of creating manufacturing jobs, we shipped them overseas, and threw their workers into Wal-Mart, an Arkansas-based company the Clintons mortgaged their political future on, a place where Hillary Clinton once sat silently on the Board as the corporate officers savaged union organizers to rise to global prominence. And in return the American worker got a trade deal with China, which competes against the American worker with low wages, government-owned labor unions, smog, and environmental destruction so Wal-Mart can make a few more bucks on the margins.

Anyone who tells you that Bill Clinton's America was prosperous is a lie. He left the Whitehouse with California under the thumb of Enron and the country heading into a recession. Bill Clinton left the Whitehouse without doing anything to lower the costs of healthcare, which is why it is still the biggest issue for kitchen-table Democrats. Hillary Clinton has taken more money from the Healthcare Insurance industry than any candidate in this country. Of course she wants to mandate that every American worker- whether they can afford it or not- to pay the Healthcare Insurance industry. Wall Street doesn't bank in losers. They bank with people who know how to sell out when the price of reform is high and retire to a comfortable non-competitive Senate seat in New York.

That's the truth as I have lived it and seen it.

Barack Obama is the change we need. Barack is the community organizer, the civil rights lawyer, the Illinois state senator, the US Senator, and most of all, the President of the United States we need.

Thanks heavyrunner, I totally agree about 9-11 being an inside job.

For those tucking their heads into little mounds of white puffy sand on Sen. Obama's funding of the war while being "opposed to it". Obama has not committed to closing bases in Iraq which means tens of thousands of troops will be there forever, just like Korea. Sen. Obama has not proposed spending less on the bloated military budget, he is proposing spending more.

Spending more money on the military than all the other nations on earth put together is a crime against humanity. Where is Mr. Obama on military spending? If we put more into the military that means less for programs that help people and more for programs that kill people. Why is he not saying anything? Is he playing it safe just like he does on controversial issues by not voting. Not voting is an unprincipled and cowardly way of avoiding having to take tough stands.

Remember the "peace dividend"? The so-called "war on terror" is a substitute for the cold war funding of the military industrial complex. Has he EVER spoken out against the ballooning military budget? What has he done in his stint in congress about this issue? Sure he was opposed to the war when his vote didn't matter. After he became a US Senator he took his anti-war speech down off his website and voted for the war every time it came up for funding just like Hillary. Then he has the nerve to criticize her record when his voting record on this issue is virtually identical. Where is Mr. Obama on military spending? WHERE IS HE??????

I love Cynthia McKinney. I was at the pro Impeachment Rally on Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C. on January 20, 2005, organized by Ramsey Clark, and I got so excited to get a picture of Cynthia when she came to the podium to speak I almost knocked someone down by accident!

If I was choosing the President I would anoint her today. But that's not how it works. Cynthia, bless her heart, is probably not even going to win the Green nomination, as Ralph Nader is polling near 50% right now with Cynthia around 20% among Greens.

I agree with Cynthia on 9/11 having most certainly been an inside job. How did the six guys they have tortured into making confessions at Guantanamo get the U.S. military to stand down our entire NORAD air defenses that day? There is a guided missile cruiser always stationed in the Potomac river near the Pentagon with the most sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles in the world on 24 hour alert ready to shoot down any aircraft that threatens the Pentagon or D.C. So it isn't even a question of what happened to the 400+ F-15s, the worlds best interceptor aircraft that can fly at MACH III, that ship alone could have stopped any plane from hitting the Pentagon. Why were no military personnel disciplined or relieved of duty of the biggest failure in American defenses ever? Several colonels were relieved of duty over the recent flying of H-Bombs in a B-52 over the Midwest. How did the guys at Guantanamo arrange for no discipline of U.S. military over the complete failure on 9/11/2001?

Anyone who views the video of the buildings coming down on 9/11 in New York can readily see that they were blown to smithereens by explosives. How did some unlikely Middle Eastern men arrange that?

The steel from the buildings, which would have provided a tremendous amount of forensic evidence, was trucked to barges at an incredible rate and sent to China for scrap to be melted down before investigators could examine it. How did those Middle Eastern men arrange that?

Cynthia McKinney is on the right side of those issues, but she is not going to be elected President in 2008. If Hillary is the Democratic candidate I will probably vote for Nader or McKinney or the Peace and Freedom candidate, even though I now am vice-chairman of my local Democratic Party county central committee. I am glad that Barak Obama is beating Hillary, obviously, and I will vote for him in November if he wins the nomination.

Regardless, McCain has zero chance of winning in California, so a vote for a Green here will be a free vote. It would be a more difficult choice if I lived somewhere like Virginia.

One would think after 3 decades...of the
republicans ability to "sway" democrats and
the public to "their thoughtout strategies"
haven't you'all caught on....the drum beat for
Obama and the switchover in the primary votings.
caucuses and otherwise...their intent on
"crossing over"...so Obama would be the candidate to beat...is so obvious. But the
duped ones..call it "unstoppable momentum...
the people have spoken...he has republicans
panting also to have him...etc.etc."!!! GAD..
use your brain...not your "let me feel good
as stated above..."because I'm above racism...
etc etc".. just so you can feel good...pathetic..
Face a fact...Hiliary has been and is
being beaten up by the phrase..."oh she's
power hungry"...fact...has any male voters and
loads of female voters...stopped and thought...
"oh yes...chimpy bush is a power hungry person,
or...Kerry...is power hungry...or on and on
as to these MALES> FACT: TO TALK ABOUT A REAL
CHANGE.....OBAMA IS STILL PART OF THE GROUP...
(BLACKS GOT THE VOTE BEFORE "WOMEN" BY THE WAY)
AND THE FACT IS....THIS COUNTRY HAS NEVER
ALLOWED A "WOMAN UP TO BAT". I would have voted
way back when 1972...I think for Shirley
Chilsom...but everyone knew what an illusion
that was. SO...HEY GUYS...FOR THE FOUR HOUR
ERECTIONS FROM CIALIS....
HAVE THE GUTS...TO TRY A REAL CHANGE.
VOTE FOR HILIARY...DON'T HAND IT OVER ONCE
AGAIN TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Bill Clinton is clueless and, thankfully, he destroyed Hillary's campaign with his mindless playing of the race card in South Carolina. He has been behind a wall of Secret Service, hobnobbing with billionaires for so long that he no longer has a remote hint as to what is going on with people. It's is the only explanation for things like his smug comments about "Jesse won here in '88 too" and other such howlers.

This is a man who has whored himself into hundreds of millions of dollars based upon his electoral success in being a Republican Trojan Horse.

We don't need act three. I was supporting Kucinich, but voted for Obama in the end in our California primary. If Obama had had two more weeks he would have won here in California.

Heavyrunner what is your opinion about Cynthia McKinney for president?

houghts_Into_Action - "Don't Get Fooled Again" was a song by the Who, not the Rolling Stones. The song was sung by Roger Daltry.

I resigned from the California State Coordinating Council of the Green Party of California (State Central Committee) in December of '06. If people knew what a mess the Green Party is on the inside, at least in California, the name would not hold the cache it does now. Ralph Nader remains an independent when he uses the Green Party ballot access for good reason. In two years of attending the state Plenary Sessions (Conventions) the Green Party of California was unable to adopt an agenda ever, not once. I would drive somewhere and rent a motel room for three days and spend three maddening days listening to people argue about whether or not consensus could be reached on an agenda and there was always someone ready to go to the mike or stand to object to consensus so no agenda was ever adopted.

This will seem unbelievable, but there was not one sentence uttered from the podium about health care or the environment or war in the two years I attended those meetings. For any of that to have taken place, an agenda would have to have been adopted, and none ever were because of the Green Party's insistence upon only decisions by consensus and personality conflicts which insured that that would never happen. There were more instances of committee members threatening to bring firearms into the meeting and settle matters than there were discussions of war and peace.

So please don't put your faith in the Green Party, at least in California, until you get involved like I did and find out first hand what a mess it is.

Jim Glover February 16th, 2008 10:23 am

In my case and I only speak for myself, it isn't that I won't vote for Obama under any circumstances, it's that I don't know enough about him to make up my mind yet. "Change" or "yes we can" isn't enough for me, I want to know his stand on every issue and I want to compare that to his voting record.

I still remember when Bill Clinton talked about helping the middle/ working class incessantly during his first campaign and then as soon as he got in office he burned all of us with NAFTA, the WTO, the China trade deal, and all the other "free trade" deals that he got passed.

So I put it in the "been burned before file" and am waiting for more details and corroberation before I make up my mind about anything.

Lobo Gris

IN SUPPRT OF THE LEAP FROM THE BURNING BUILDING, HERE IS A COMMENT FROM A EUROPEAN PERSON THAT SHOULD BE HEARD. MOST AMERICANS HERE CARE ONLY ABOUT WHAT THE US ATTITUDE TOWARD THIS ELECTION MIGHT BE BUT DON'T GET IT THAT OBAMA HAS MENTIONED THE WORLD IN HIS RHETORIC AND NOT PAID LIP SERVICE ALONE AS WITH OTHER PEOPLE. THE BELOW STATEMENT SOUNDS LIKE IT IS LIBERAL AND THOUGHTFUL. MOREOVER, HE TALKS ABOUT THE CENTRAL ISSUE, NOT JUST THE USA BUT ALSO ABOUT THE WORLD.

Aggie67 February 16th, 2008 2:20 am 
I hope you Americans realise that we, in the rest of the world, are following these primary elections of yours with the greatest of interest. Whatever you do effects us so much. The election of George W Bush seemed to have been such a corruption of the democracy you hold dear, please don't let it happen again by your incessent bickering amongst yourselves.The world needs you to get back to REAL DEMOCRACY, so that we can all live a safer life.What we can't understand is why you don't seem to have "one man, one vote" It all seems to be based on which candidate has the most money, delegates and very strong lobbyists.Definitely not one, man one vote and the winner of the popular vote doesn't seem to win the election. Weird definition of democracy.


I am infected with Obama Mania.

After reading all the negative posts here about how he is a poser out to trick us, I am even more infected.

Before it was all "oh nobody is gonna elect a black man with a Moslem name that sounds like Osama".
Remember that rap folks?

Well no he is not going to indorse the dictatorship of the proletariat and show you a five year program to nationalize the means of production which the cynics would love to see but they would shoot that down as posing in the end also.

Well I know that not all of you who won't vote for him because you want to build a true progressive party are not as wacko as I suspect but I am.

I am tired of looking for mr perfect with all these millions of words about who will win and where on my favorite site here.

I don't care what dirt you can dig up on anybody....I am wacko for Obama and proud of it.

If that means I am irrational... bullshit!
I am nuts and think he is the best chance we got and Ralph and Cynthia Mckinney are nice folks but they just don't have the chance that Obama has to help make a better world.

Vote or not I don't give a shit anymore because it is your own choice... I choose to be nuts for Obama.

And I like Chicago too.

Now carry on your shooting each other like good Progressives.

braithwa842 brings up the fact that the Republicans are making sure to refer to Obama's middle name. I am curious about this. I happen to know that both Sunni and Shia have this name but there is that whole other connection to the major schism in Islam. Does his middle name mean that the Sunni will be more likely to be upset with Obama because the name is that of a Shia martyr?

Hopefully, this is a petty concern that couldn't possibly have any impact in the real world. But if it could, I have no doubt that the swift-boat types will play it real ugly.