I agree with you about lefties. Unfortunately I am not, but both my parents were, and I like to think some of that trickled down to me. One of my daughters is a lefty, and for sure, she is an independent thinker. I like Obama's appeal to our better instincts and character. I saw him speak in New Hampshire and am totally hooked. As my husband's Texas grandmother used to say, "we must rise above" whatever our difficulty. That same idea is at work here.

What do you mean you don't understand why we hate Hillary, or as I like to call her the Welfare Reform Queen. Her husband's administration, which she claims to have been a part of, Killed Welfare, Passed NAFTA, Cut SSI, bombed Serbia and Iraq, Starved Iraq, allowed news media to consolidate in fewer hands than ever before, and many other significant transgressions. As Senator, Hillary has voted twice to give Bush unlimited war powers, voted for the Patriot Act and other spying laws, voted for Bankruptcy reform, has befriended the CEOs of Drug Companies and Media companies including Rupert Murdock. She has shown that her only agenda is to get herself into power. I live on SSI, and her actions have caused me and friends of mine direct financial pain. Instead of being perplexed at why we hate her I think a better question is: what is there to like?

Where does he stand on the economy?

Where does he stand global warming?

Where does he stand on the looming energy crisis?

Where does he stand on restoring civil liberties?

Where does he stand on "free trade"?

Where does he stand on restoring the balance between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial balance?

Where does he stand on torture?

Where does he stand on the housing crisis?

Where does he stand on the budget and trade deficits?

Where does he stand?

He should feel free to use either hand to describe his stand on these and many other issues and he should feel free to use either hand to point to his voting record on them

Lobo Gris

Both Obama and Mrs. Clinton are "liberals" by any comparative standard to Republicans or self-described proud conservatives. Both are smart, including the adoption of certain pragmatism about the absolute necessity to sometimes work with those "across the aisle" ---in order to even ever arrive where they are in national prominence with any actual shot at being President.

One of them (the left-handed one) seems to have a gifted talent to inspire us. The other, less so.

One of them (the half-black one) has a skin tone and name capable of signaling the world that Americans finally awoke, FAVORED AND ELECTED somebody other than another anglo to become defacto leader of the free world. (Priceless!)

NONE OF WHICH is a slam on Mrs. Clinton. She, not John McCain, is our best second choice at this moment.

lobo, do your own homework, all the answers you seek are on his website.

Obama is running away with it because people are sick of corporations running and ruining the world.

Lobo Gris, where have you been? Obama will end torture and "enhanced interrogation", restore habeaus corpus, close Guantanamo. He has specific proposals concerning global warming, opposes NAFTA, has taken specific stands on restraint of executive power [this in a Boston Globe interview of all the candidates, see http://www.onemillionstrong.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=492 ], has released en economic program dealing with the housing crisis. See Obama's position papers on his website (www.barackobama.com then "Issues") as well as interviews with journalists readily accessible on the internet by google. Have you read his positions on the issues on his website? Maybe that would be a better first step than to ask readers of Common Dreams to explain to you "Where does he stand?" The difference between Obama and Clinton is not in degree of substance and specifics in their respective positions but rather style in which Obama connects to audiences in terms of vision and images in a way that Clinton does not and McCain in November will not.

The reason for Hillary Clinton's pro-war vote is not that she "didn't do her homework" as you say. It's that she made a cold-hearted, cynical political calculation and concluded that taking a stand against the war a year after 9/11 might hurt her down the road politically, and so she did the politically cowardly and convenient thing, and voted with the majority of her gutless colleagues. What makes her vote particularly noxious and inexcusable is that she knew better, but didn't give a rat's ass for the consequences in terms of blood and money.

And that's why she should not get a single vote from anyone who feels that this war in Iraq is a crime and a mistake and a disaster. No amount of apologizing on her part could make up for the damage she's done.

Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net

Lieberman-Kyl convinced me that she intentionally approved the Iraq debacle....she can't be trusted....she is like George Bush in drag. All her moves speak of political expediency, not idealism nor commitment to liberal beliefs. I think the only theing she really believes in is Hillary and like Dumbya, her god-given right to be President.

EXPERIENCE??? If I was married to a heart surgeon, could I then claim to have experience doing heart surgery? I think not.

Her entire campaign is just a way for Bill to get around the two-term limits. Do you want pro-NAFTA Willy back in the White House?

Like all politicians -- save Kucinich -- Obama will say anything (or not say it) just to get elected. I was pleased to see his recent vote to ban waterboarding, but other than that, he is now a signed, sealed, and delivered member of military-industrial-congressional club. There is truly no difference here except that Obama didn't vote to give an idiot free reign to declare war. But he did give the idiot all the $$$ he needs to sustain it -- twice !!!

i think the author misses an important fact, i.e., the electorate is inclined to take whatever choice seems least acceptable to the ruling class. in large part this is due to the fact that we are enraged that the ruling class has been using its hand on the guns to control the debates.

2 legitimate reasons for obamas surge in support.

1.the arrogant presumption by the clintons that they are the democratic party and are entitled to the adminidstration.

2. the fact obama did not authorize the war; whether he was in senate or not is moot - doesn't excuse clinton or mccain or edwards vote, although he's supported funding for the military he's advocating a withdrawl - i'd prefer total withdrawl but either way it's an improvement from clinton/sanctions or bush/war.

b clinton's own words, demonstrate his myopic obsession with power and his unwillingness to address the problems that emerged from his failed policies (nafta, welfare reform, 100,000 more police on the streets and the following rapid growth of the prison industry, and of course the 500,000- 1,000,000 dead civilians in iraq as a consequence of sanctions).clnton also pretends (fails to acknowledge) that obama doesn't have experience. clinton appears to have not visited obamas webpage and he's apparently unaware that the senator from illinois served in the state senate.

b clinton's own words today in TX w/ brief commentary by sarah amos.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/bill-clinton-ob.html

"There are two competing moods in America today," Clinton said. "People who want something fresh and new -- and they find it inspiring that we might elect a president who literally was not part of any of the good things that happened or any of the bad things that were stopped before. The explicit argument of the campaign against Hillary is that 'No one who was involved in the 1990s or this decade can possibly be an effective president because they had fights. We're not going to have any of those anymore.' Well, if you believe that, I got some land I wanna sell you."

"ABC News' Sarah Amos is traveling with the former president and transcribed his comments.
For the record, in the 1990s, Obama was a civil rights attorney, community organizer, and was in the Illinois state senate.Presumably, by "any of the good things that happened" in the 1990s, Clinton is referring to the things he did as president (except for the ones his wife now distances herself from, such as NAFTA)."

the anti war sentiment has alot to do w/ obama's surge in support. and his surge is pulling more progressive democratic candidates who are attentive to the desires of their constituents across the country and questioning the status quo. donna edwards experience this week in MD demonstrates how the surge in voter participation (? obama, ? change) has enabled an anti war dem to unseat a dem congressman who voted for the war.

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

encourage superdelegates to support obama in denver...........
please donate to kucinich and sheehan..............peace................

"Lieberman-Kyl convinced me that she intentionally approved the Iraq debacle….she can't be trusted…."

Totally agree! I was about to give in to her on the 2002 Iraq war vote, then she voted for Kyl-Lieberman, and that was it. It would be hard for me to vote for her in November if she is the nominee. I probably would, unless Obama wins the most pledged delegates and the "supers" overide them. Then its a move to Canada!

It shouldn't come to that, I too believe she is toast. March 4th should settle it.

If I was looking at voting records, I'd discard the last year or so. Both candidates have been voting the opposite of what they've done before just because they were running for President. So, of course they have nearly identical voting records in the last year. They are just following the standard line of votes they needed to take to run for President.

Just for an example, they both voted against funding the Iraq war this year. But, both had been voting to fund it in previous years.

And like all comparisons of voting records, I'm sure in the internal workings of the Senate they were both given the Green light by Reid to cast a meaningless, symbolic vote against funding the war AFTER Reid was assured that he had enough votes for passage of the war money.

So, who cares.

Since the recent sheeple mantra out here has been to check Obama's website, I did.

What BS. Since 'economy' was top on the list of questions above, I went to that issue.

At first, it sounds good. Its always saying the Obama is going to fund this and spend money on that and increase money on other stuff. He's going to fund basic research and double tax credits. Then a big broad statement that he's going to do more to fund eduction. You go down further and he says the same thing about renewable energy. Everything is I'll spend more money on everything.

At the same time he says he's going to cut middle-class taxes. And give such tax cuts and rebates as to restart the economy. And in other speeches, I've heard him saying he's going to increase the number of troops in the Army, which means more defense spending, and he never talks about cutting defense.

You step back and look at the big picture, and its all BS. You read and it makes you feel good, because on every detail of every issue he's saying what sounds good for that. But when you step back and really look at it, you realize he couldn't possibly do all that. So its all BS. Its all there to make you feel good. He doesn't have the slightest intention of doing all of that. He couldn't possibly do all of that. Its all BS.

Save a copy for reference, then go back and look at it two years into an Obama presidency. You'll see then that it just all BS.

What is this "pre-millennial thinking" bs...

I'll admit I have a certain natural Gen X affinity for the Senator from Illinois - not because he's black. That's pre-millennial thinking.

One would like to think the following is true, but it backs up it's point with superficial references. Just because someone listens to a black musician doesn't mean they will accept a black person as president. Maybe this parenthetical remark should have been left out of the article altogether...
(The whole gender/race/Vietnam War/liberal-conservative hang-up the boomers are on ain't - yes, I said, ain't - an issue for us post-Civil Rights kids. Race and gender still matter, but not ultimately. It's like, even though we've never had a black or woman president, we're past that. You think the Bush twins have Lawrence Welk in their iPod? But I bet they jam to Will I Am, and probably even Kanye West, his Katrina emergency fundraiser remarks notwithstanding).

riverman101, 3:38: It's pretty amazing the way you're able to read John Edwards' mind these days, when the rest of us are wondering whether he'll endorse anyone, etc. Oh, but I forgot -- you've discovered that Edwards is a "lieing corrupt politician". I know this because you've posted that phrase here at LEAST 15 times. If you're planning to continue enlightening us about Edwards, kindly note that the word is spelled "lying" -- not "lieing."

Funding the war is supporting the war. The author omits the fact that Obama voted to fund the wars. The seeming difference between the Dem frontrunners that Gonsalves points to in this loosely worded essay is really no difference at all.

Last nite on Bill Maher, Andrew Sullivan said something to the effect that Obama was a conservative, as if we needed any more anal retentive, reactionary regressive authoritarians in power. God help us.

It seems to be a common practice when someone asks about Obama's position to refer that person to his website. But if the positions spelled out there are, in fact, his, why doesn't he talk about them - even if briefly - on the campaign trail? Otherwise, how do we know that he is truly committed to those positions?

Sometimes Speech IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN votes.

We all know that votes can be a lie. The Liebermancrats count the number they need to vote for the Republicans,
and then let the others vote against.

The Liebermancrats have been allowing their charismatic leader harry Reid to stir the masses into qusi-orgiastic frenzy, Oder.....? Talk IS more importatant than votes, bcause nobody has heard a real opposition voice since 9/11 and hardly at all before then. Opposition voices on the internet dont count because they do not have the same power to coaslesce into a national movement. T

Lobo and others: Try googling your issue before you claim there is no information on it. I was going to say once that there is no evidence of rising sea levels, but then, instead of posting that, i googled it. It is is 2-3mm per year, it used to be .1-.2. By Googling it I stopped myself from looking ignorant and impulsive. Do the same.

Riverman: FDR was a war criminal. The second world war was not the best of times was it? Perhaps Americans are so enamoured with war they think those are the best times. FDR provoked and allowed Pearl Harbor. And he is your hero? FDR was was a mediocre man who as president gained his reputation by co-opting the murdered Huey Long's ideas because there was no choice. The depression was making people angry and the establishment had to defuse that. FDR did that job and protected the establishment. Some hero.

words and policy positions are always subject to be modified. there convenient landmarks, they lead us to where we're going but they don't necessarily show us the actual place we'll be, what actually will happen when candidate x, y, z is elected. it's more difficult to fabricate a biography: editor of harvard law review, organizer, civil rights lawyer, st senator, senator. the dem candidate will push the dem party platform, which hopefully will also reflect some of the ideas raised by edwards and kucinich during the primary season. this has always been the case; what the president actually does - that's a different question. i agree with the gonsalves' assesment,

" I'm not so naive to think presidential politics is THE ANSWER to America's problems."

the answer to our countries illness has everything to do with our level of participation and our will.

yet another illuminating example of bill clinton's (i mean hillary's) doublespeak this past week. who will circumvent the will of the people? why the people of course (not the super delegates).

from eugene robinson's essay, quote attributed to bill clinton on tuesday.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080215_clintons_vs_the_media/

"The political press has avowedly played a role in this election. I've never seen this before," the former president said. "They've been active participants in this election. ... But I don't want to talk about the press. I want to talk about the people. That's what's wrong with this election, people trying to take this election away from the people."

COMarc February 16th, 2008 3:56 pm

is there any person in the congress or who holds a seat representing other people -today- that you believe would be a better democratic candidate ? who is this person ? if such a person doesn't exist what's your point. except to call others names.(disenfranchised voters who surged to the polls in MD to support an anti war dem - while voting for obama - are sheep?)

please continue to support third party pro peace candidates in elections they can win.

please donate to kucinich and sheehan............peace.............

It's new to me that Americans are interested in foreign policy. Only if they are waging a war somewhere which they are losing. Only if they are losing do they get interested in what they are actually doing to others abroad!!!

If Iraq had gone well, nobody would still question the legitimacy of it now in America, and Jeb Bush would be running for President with a good chance to win. Let's just be honest: The Iraqis are stopping the neocons' continuous rise in America, and nobody else!! Sad, but true.

Obama is interestingly enough to the right of Hillary on social issues. BTW. He's conservative on foreign policy and has this horrible Zbigniew Brzezinski, the ultimate cold warrior and hawk during the Carter administration, as his foreign policy advisor. I never understood how that guy ended up with the Democrats. Maybe they had too many hawks in the Rep camp already, who knows. I read Obama's foreign policy address and felt like vomiting.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/
But he will be nicer towards the UN..

I am sure that Hillary is no better.

They both probably haven't much of clue about the world outside precious America, so they will rely on the usual suspects, normally cold warriors, as usual, but the rest of the world is used to this by now. Just don't use the word CHANGE when talking about any of the candidates' foreign policy ideas to people who actually know a thing or two about it, i.e. the ones outside America, PLEASE!

lizard, I agree FDR was a war criminal. He refused to let Jews into the US who were desperately trying to flee Germany. But he also signed the GI bill which created a huge middle class - which however, was designed to exclude black veterans from participating in it's benefits. So he swung both ways. A man of his time. he did create a huge public works program which provided us with an infrastructure which unfortunately has been completely neglected since 1980 (Reagan's policies).

I want to comment on a - to me - big difference between Obama and Clinton. She is lying about him, she is trying to change the rules she agreed to in midstream, and is running a negative campaign. He is staying honest, staying with agreed rules, and although fighting back, has not once initiated negative tactics.

Clinton voted to pass the punitive bankruptcy bill, voted against stripping the cluster bomb ban from a defense appropriation bill, has created a universal health care plan that would garnish workers' wages to pay for it. Obama has opposed her on all these issues.

Yes, Obama has Brzezinski on his foreign policy team (who did oppose the Iraq invasion) but the majority of his foreign policy team favor diplomacy over attacking other countries. Wouldn't McCain have a field day with him if he came out looking like Kucinich on foreign policy? And he has been bold enough to say he would talk with our enemies. Hillary excoriated him for that statement, so we know her position. Right next to Lieberman.

On social issues, they have similar stands, as long as the corporations don't mind, then they diverge, Hillary to the right.

kathyodat

Mr. Gonsalves,
Your article does little to explain "the Obama surge," which is what title of the article implies it will do. The first part describes that the voting record of Clinton and Obama are very similar and the second part provides some points of distinction that make you favor Obama, incl. his anti-war stance and his left-handedness. This has no ostensible connection with why Obama is surging in the primaries, or if it does you have not explained it.

for those interested in understanding 'the surge', both clinton and obama are speaking at a wisconsin dem fund raise now. over at.... kohl and feingold will also speak..

http://www.c-span.org/

Scott, you're right that Clinton had her own (unexpressed) agenda for voting for the invasion. Scott Ritter testified to Congress about what he saw as a weapons inspector, they had the same information we did. She has shown over and over she can't be trusted. Not what you would call a straight shooter.

kathyodat

Obama's got a couple books out there, too. They're pretty good sources for figuring out what makes the man tick. I'm afraid the main problem with him is that he tries so hard to be all things to all people that he ends up standing for nothing. He sure is good at the speechifying, though. Watching his speech sandwiched between Hillary's and McCain's on the night of the "Potomac Primary", it was clear who's got the most charisma. The other two seemed old and uninspired in comparison. I think he'd have a much better shot at winning than Hillary in a matchup with McCain, based on that contrast. Most of the electorate doesn't seem to vote so much on substance or issues as on charisma and likeability or, as my beloved godfather put it, because he's a "good lookin' young fella". That's the main reason we got stuck with Dumbya last go around. Kerry looks and sounds like an undertaker.

The bad intelligence was between Hillary's ears, and Bush's, Cheneys, Rice's, Powell's ad nauseam. It was clear to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that the rationales for this war, and even the Afghanistan war, were falsified. That Hillary displayed such disastrously bad judgment then, and such remorseless sophistry now, is enough to disqualify her.

To me the most striking difference between H. Clinton and B. Obama is that she is a corporate pawn. She has accepted major money from Rupert Murdock, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the oil industry. Those people don't give money unless they are sure of a payback. Whatever she says, she is not going to act against the interests of these major donors. The payback will come at the people's expense. Obama's average contribution, I understand, is $14! That makes him much more independent and subject to the influence of public opinion.

Araquin:

It doesn't sound so bad to me. He has to take care of the politics, but the main message is that he will change the attitude. I don't think you are being objective.

I very much want Obama to get the nomination, but why do I have a feeling that Hillary Clinton is going to win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania? If she wins these states she will have a rightful claim to being the party's nominee.

I have very little faith in the masses. The ignorant and the benighted outnumber the intelligent and the wise. There are hordes of stupid women who will vote for HC just because she's a woman, and there are countless working-class folks who really believe HC gives a crap about them. In American electoral politics evil always triumphs over good. I have this awful feeling that the deceitful b***h is going to prevail in the end. If that is the case, I'm going to have to vote for McCain.

Recently, Obama has promised to implement a large public works job program if elected. These jobs will be directed toward repairing, maintaining and explanding our neglected soft and hard infrastructure.

No other DP or GOP hopeful even utters the phrase, "large-scale public works program."

A possible unintended consequence of such a program is that it may dampen those economic incentives that cause many young people to join American's Imperial Guards (i.e., military).

FDR is the guy who saved capitalism. Subsidize the least profitable end of it, so that corporations would again flourish. Somehow, it doesn't quite sound like what we need today.

riverbird February 16th, 2008 1:32 pm

"lobo, do your own homework, all the answers you seek are on his website."

You missed the point of my post. With all of the important outstanding issues we have facing us, who gives a sh#t whether he is left handed or right handed. People who write articles should be writing them on issues of importance, not on whether someone is right handed or left handed. And what about those people that don't have computers or access to one? Where will they find out where he stands? Should they go in the voting booth trying to decide whether to vote for someone based on which hand they favor?

Lobo Gris

scroller February 16th, 2008 1:51 pm

Please read my post above to riverbird

Lobo Gris

#
lizard February 16th, 2008 5:45 pm

"Lobo and others: Try googling your issue before you claim there is no information on it. I was going to say once that there is no evidence of rising sea levels, but then, instead of posting that, i googled it. It is is 2-3mm per year, it used to be .1-.2. By Googling it I stopped myself from looking ignorant and impulsive. Do the same."

lizard you too didn't get the gist of my post. I wasn't looking for answers, please read my post to riverbird above

Lobo Gris

I like Hillary. And I don't quite understand the visceral hatred she evokes in some people.

She's female, that's why. I'm in the midst of a several week foray into the unholy land of rightwing and libertarian blogosphere America, and I can tell you they hate anything feminine; they hate feminists, they hate assertive women, they hate Hillary. They fool themselves into believing they don't hate women in persona, but they still loath them. And these are men AND WOMEN, who have somehow been convinced to think in opposition to their own interests.

If you want an exercise in repulsion, check out this blog:

voxday.blogspot.com

"Understanding the Obama Surge" is as simple as understanding how extremely unfairly-high campaign spending and the mass marketing it fuels can make a halfway decent candidate look like a good one. Nevertheless, I'll be voting for him in November because the office is just too important to leave in the hands of the Republicans.

We are electing a leader here.

One has a natural ability to inspire us, one has the already proven ability to divide us. Which is the better choice as a leader?

As stated, their positions are very similar on the issues. In my mind, it's no contest.

The US needs to amend the basic cold war strategy assumption that our economy can simultaneously operate at near-full efficiency so as to provide a high standard of living, and also divert enormous resources for purposes other than civilian consumption, i.e. military. This is known as "economic Keynesianism, which means to keep a permanent war economy and to treat military output as an ordinary economic product, even though it contributes nothing to either production or consumption in the civilian economy. For 60 years we have escaped the consequences of our belief that the US is such a wealthy nation that it can afford the level of military expenses that we see today. This is no longer true. The hundreds of billions of dollars for military spending this year are unnecessary and it is obscene to divert this huge sum from the civilian economy (schools, health, community development programs, etc. etc.) We are not rich enough to do both, as one glance around reveals. The troubles of today's economy... gargantuan debt, falling dollar, enormous national debt, credit crisis and a markedly weakening economy, are not mere passing tempests - they indicate a failing core economy.
Obama favors change, Clinton is "business as usual". Basis public economic policy must be CHANGED to restore civilian spending as primary and military as limited to core homeland defense needs. For example, thanks to Clinton and McCain, we are diverting from our civilian economy over 1.5 billion dollars a week to fight in country 7,000 miles from our east coast which never, ever posed a remote military threat to our homeland. The "opportunity cost" (other things the money could have bought) are shocking to those Americans who can envision what these amounts would have done if spent on domestic needs and programs. We are financing 800 military bases around the world. It will take a brave visionary like Obama to take on the military-industrial powers and shift the emphasis to civilian programs for our communities and life quality.

Lobo: How could one tell? You are, of course, correct, in my opinion. This is our way, shallow thinking, and choosing leaders by their personality and personal characteristics instead of their ideas. Kucinich was too short and school presidentish. Gravel is too relaxed and undefferential. Paul looks like a rat and isn't Presidential. McKinney is too radical. Nader is too serious and earnest. Clinton gives us the creeps. Obama is polished and inspirational. Edwards is too boyish. McCain is tough, and a hero. Romney is a mormon. Huckabee is a hick. Giuliani is a sleaze.

Nixon was seen as realistic and McGovern as namby-pamby
Carter was a good egg but didn't master the congress
Reagan was elected for being optimistic
Reagan was elected again in spite of having Alzheimer's and showing it, because he gave us money.
Bush senior was elected because he promised money and kicked out for breaking his promise.
Bill was elected because he promised to give us money. The economy stupid.
Bill was re-elected because we prospered.
Bush II was elected because he was a regular nice guy
Bush was reelected because you support your chief in war.

As for elections being stolen or lost because of Nader, the issue is that the elections were very close. If is is close enough to call it's close enough to hit. It should never have been that close to begin with.

Straight from the horse's mouth on Obama's web site. I guess the Obamist believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. Perhaps the Obamist need to do their homework!

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

SEE! OBAMA WILL KEEP TROOPS IN IRAQ AND CONTINUE THE WAR BECAUSE AL QAEDA IS NOT GOING TO FOLD ITS TENT AND LEAVE.

lizard February 16th, 2008 5:45 pm
By Googling it I stopped myself from looking ignorant and impulsive. Do the same.

Good one!

Sean did explain the Barak surge but did it in such an understated manner that it almost went unnoticed. The November '06 election was such a unified cry for change that has yet to be satisfied that Obama is correct to tap into that. He may understand something that the rest of us have yet to glom on to. His campaign does have the outside chance of changing the national mood so strongly that even the political slaves of the ruling class will not be able to ignore it. If elected, Barak could then shrug his shoulders and say that he must now re-think those positions many of us here find so unsavory and status quo.

All speculation, of course. My OPINION is that he is the only HOPE for change. The other two remaining candidates (Huckabee is toast) represent the status quo, business as usual.

Something is being unaddressed by most of the pundits and analysts. Look at the two remaining Republican candidates. McCain, except for his war stance, is correctly seen as moderate or even liberal, by the ultra-conservatives. Huckabee, except for his religious pandering is a populist who understands the just and necessary application of the mechanism of taxation. These are candidates that are ananthema to the Republican "base" yet they are the last two standing, by the choice and the will of those Republicans participating in the primaries. Draw your own conclusions, but to me it is obvious. Decades of polling prove that the majority of Americans hold progressive ideals. It is the wealthy ruling class, using the smoke and mirrors of their propoganda machine, that spin the narrative that this is not so.

BTW: Bill Clinton is in my home town today, this little corner of the rust belt. I have no desire to see him, except if I could get close enough to throw a pie in his face. Also, like Barak, I am left-handed, which may go a long way explaining my persistent iconoclasm.

Neither Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama nor John McCain can be trusted:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-jTpQSLCq_Q

The corporations are running the show with the media as the puppetmasters.

The coup de grace will be the "elections". Here's but one tiny example of what has been done:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-Wrongfully-Left-out-of-Ballots

It's all smoke and mirrors.

Anyone notice that the only three left standing are CFR members? It matters NOT which one we "elect". The agenda will remain the same.

Young people supported antiwar candidates during Viet Nam. I do not think that they gave much thought as to whether those candidates would make the best President nor what in total was the best for the country.

I see a similar situation here. People get caught up in the moment and do not think beyond the moment. What happens between now and the convention in August? What happens between August and the general election in November? What happens after the inauguration in January of 2009?

It does not take much to think ahead and imagine a probable scenario. Think ahead and try to picture certain people and situations and try not to get caught up in the excitement and luster of the glow right now. You will be living in the four years to come. Make all your decisions on this the best ones that you can make. There are too many issues of so much importance not to take these decisions seriously.