The "New Democratic Party" of the Clintons has consistently been
in lock-step with the right-wing Republicans. For half a century, Republicans railed against the New Deal policies. Before moving into the White House, the Clintons ---primarily Hillary Clinton -- were actively working on dismantling the New Deal. It took the Clintons to begin "reforming" these policies by ending the entitlement to welfare (specifically, general assistance and AFDC), clearing the way to dismantle Social Security and other policies that made this a civilized, successful nation. This has had a profound impact on America. Voth Clinton's played a vital (propaganda) role to turn public opinion against the poor, stemming any resistance from the public. The public dollars that once went toward welfare were simply taken to cover the costs of years of "tax relief" for the very rich. The economic stability created by welfare, and the opportunities created by welfare programs (education and job skills training), brought our economic disparities to historic lows. Welfare (along with the GI bill, etc.) resulted in a vastly expanded middle class. The problem there is that this shifted the bulk of the nation's wealth (and power) away from the rich, to the people, and those in power were outraged. They demanded an end to aid to (in a nutshell) create a massive bottom-wage, no options labor force, maximizing profits at the expense of the American people. The collective wealth of the nation was returned to the bank accounts of the few.

The "radical right" owes a great deal to the Clintons.

awe, thanks RSJ- I knew that we were really truly on the same team. Sometimes words get in the way of true understanding. This world we live in is killing me. It really is. And I will be one of the "lucky ones" who doesn't have to go through the final crucible because I am not physically able. But, strong people like many of us posters here will. Amd I know that the DARK side will not win. Amen and Amen.

I have similar branches in my family tree, Slim, so I understood exactly what Obama was talking about.

It was sad to hear some of the right-wing commentators later take bits of the speech out of context to criticize Obama, especially the false talking point that Obama didn't tell black people that they had to be responsible for themselves when, in fact, he did.

Today, the cable news channels showed only a part of his speech on Iraq. I guess they learned their lesson from his great speech yesterday and weren't taking any chances.

LOL @ myself- and yes, I do mean SPEECH! The speech of a lifetime, very personal to me as we have branches in our family tree that resemble Sen. Obama's.

"As to the second part of your sentence, in 2004 Obama won a record 70 percent of the vote in Illinois"

At election time, the choice was between Alan Keyes, an African-American "carpetbagger" republican freshly "moved" from Maryland, and African-American Chicago resident Barak Obama. Illinois is not New York, so unlike the Hillary Clinton senatorial saga, "foreigner" Keyes got trashed. Isn't it ironic that Sen. Clinton is really an Illinois native?!

One thing that we can all surely agree on is that Sen. Obama gave a beautiful speach. One would think that it would be impossible to be able to address EVERYONES issues, but he certainly did.

RSJ---I second annefaith's motion. More light, less heat. I do not have a TV and gladly missed out on the Pastor Wright bruhaha. I listened to all of Obama's speech today and confess that it is the first full speech by him I have heard. I was deeply moved and agree with all those who posted here that this is a speech whose time has come. It is sad that this is where we are still at as a nation, since it seems we have progressed so little in the last 50 years. ALl the same, I have such a strong sense of purpose and hope that this man is sincere that he wants us to lead us to move beyond the divisions. He even dared to speak of the "corporate interests" who would keep us divided---divide and conquor. I was wavering some in my support of Obama---no longer---the more they ( all the usual suspects) attack him, the more I sense he's the real deal, a serious threat to business as usual.

I don't hate Hillary but I will not support her---she has proven beyond a doubt that she is very much a part of what ails us and unapologetically so. SO sad, really, but better to know.

RSJ, awesome post.

Gingkofig (March 17th, 2008 5:03 pm) wrote: "Everywhere I turn I hear very ardent Obama supporters speaking / writing about Hillary Clinton with the same irrational hatred and arrogance I hear from a "typical" ardent Bush supporter. Regardless of your party affiliation, she seems to be the go-to target for your venom. 90% of the posts for this article are from a rabid group of politico-masturbators full of the same shit - be it left or right. ... Vote your conscience and let others do the same without your whining. You fucking idiots."

Gee, Gingkofig, for a minute I mistook you for a venomous hate-filled Obama supporter there: "politico-masturbators full of the same shit" and "You fucking idiots"? We will vote our conscience and, at the moment, we're letting others know what's in our conscience and why we're voting that way. If that's whining, then so be it. Is anyone forcing you to read it?

Mo42 (March 17th, 2008 6:08 pm) wrote: "I work with a bunch of xenophobic right-wingers, they were practically foaming at the mouth today. Obama as the Democratic nominee would tear this country apart. I don't see him beating McCain, if he did, he'd be lucky to survive til inauguration day. I'm so sick of all the ugliness..."

Mo42, I'm tired of the ugliness, too, and I've met the rabid right-wingers who are similar to your co-workers, but we can't cower in fear from that minority which has held the country hostage for eight years, and those people, BTW, aren't likely to vote for a woman, either. Any real opposition candidate, if they are doing their job, will 'tear this country apart,' but the majority is on our side this time, on issue after issue. I have no way of knowing if Obama will survive until inauguration day, but I do know that he will try, as he has so far, to unify the country and minimize the pain of a transition to a more progressive government. There will always be bigots among us, but they are a dwindling minority.

Learnfromthepast (March 17th, 2008 6:21 pm) wrote: "The fact is we have no way of knowing how Republicans voted in the Democratic primary -- in my conversations with my Republican friends they believe Hillary (and Bill) to be a stronger candidate against McCain."

I'll agree with the first part -- we have no reliable way to know why a Republican would vote for a Democrat. I know of a couple of 'recovering' Republicans who are disgusted with Bush and the GOP and voted for Dems in 2006 and are planning to vote for the Dems in 2008 -- the reverse of the old 'Reagan Democrats.' Also Bill Foster won Denny Hastert's old seat in Illinois' 14th, a very Republican district, so that was obviously due to cross-over voting. In various Red States across the country, such as uber-GOP Montana, Democrats are winning state offices, so the tide is changing, as it did in 1932. As to the second part of your sentence, in 2004 Obama won a record 70 percent of the vote in Illinois. While it's true that the GOP was in disarray, it still doesn't explain why rural, white, conservative Republican voters in downstate counties would vote for a black man from Chicago. I wouldn't pay attention to Republicans advising you on who the strongest Dem candidate is -- it's kind of like Bin Laden's videotape endorsement of Kerry in 2004 when he really wanted Bush in office.

Kem (March 17th, 2008 6:28 pm) wrote: "It is not Obama the GOP fears as an opponent, It's Clinton."

That's assuming facts not in evidence. As I posted here, Hillary is the candidate with stronger corporate ties and she's taken more corporate money than any other candidate in this election, so it would seem she would be the candidate the GOP would want elected, if a Dem has to be president. Hillary also has 16 years of Right Wing Noise Machine hate built up, which means that nearly half the voters say they won't vote for her, and she has now managed to offend many black and independent voters, groups she would desperately need to get elected. And the clip of Hillary praising McCain for his leadership and experience will be aired repeatedly by his campaign. How does that translate into her being the candidate McCain would most fear in the general election?

Becky L (March 17th, 2008 6:33 pm) wrote: "Maybe most of you haven't heard about the Obama campaign policy of instructing people how to be "Democrats for a Day" to vote in primaries, or participate in caucuses. Happening now in PA, has happened in Texas and elsewhere. In Texas the instructions were particularly anti-Clinton, and aimed at Republicans: basically let's get rid of Clinton by supporting Obama. So lots of his support is temporarily crossing over Republicans and Independents that have no intention of voting for him if he gets the nomination."

(Big Al Gore sigh) I haven't heard that Obama's campaign is doing this, but don't you think Hillary is doing exactly the same thing? Of course the Clinton campaign is 'particularly' anti-Obama and instructing people how to vote for her and against him -- so what? Is Hillary is refusing the votes of Republicans or independents who are temporarily crossing over to vote for her but have no intention of voting for her in the general election? This is a big nothing dressed up as a news flash.

Annika (March 17th, 2008 7:17 pm) quoted: "While Obama often won some of these states so handily that Republicans and independents could not have provided his margin of victory, there is no way to know how many delegates in close congressional-district contests will wind up in Denver because of the impact of Republican or independent voters. And there is no exit-poll data to measure their impact on the caucuses."

So Wayne Barrett concluded there "is no way to know" how many Republicans provided Obama's various victories, or his delegate count, and that he won some states where GOP votes weren't part of the margin of victory. You also forgot to quote the next line: "Nor can the exit data reveal the motive for so many crossovers. These voters may have been attracted by Obama's message of transcending politics as usual, or they may simply have been trying to tilt the scales to help nominate the candidate they believe Republicans can most easily beat." There is also no way to know how many Limbaugh Republicans provided Hillary's victories and delegate count, and the rest of Barrett's article quotes conservative Republicans who have attacked both Hillary and Obama and, somewhat naively, assumes the neocons are being truthful. (See my comment re Bin Laden's videotape endorsing Kerry right before the 2004 election.) One thing we do know is that, in 2006, independents voted by large majorities for the winning Dem candidates, and Obama is popular with independents as well. So, what point are you trying to make to us "useful idiots" -- that Wayne Barrett doesn't know why Obama has won so many primaries and caucuses? If so, then I agree with you -- Wayne Barrett doesn't know why Obama has won so many primaries and caucuses.

Iowablackbird (March 17th, 2008 8:14 pm): LOL!

Those of you who saw Obama's speech this morning know why so many are drawn to him -- even some of the TV Talking Heads were calling it the best speech on race relations since Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech -- it had substance and it got down to cases about the racial divide in this country, given by a man who, due to his ancestry, understands both black and white America. Hillary Clinton, a product of the white upper middle-class, would give her left nut, so to speak, to be able to write and deliver a speech like that, and to be able to understand America the way Obama does.

This is one of the big differences between Hillary and Obama -- while Hillary says "Here's what I'm going to give you," Obama says "Here's what we can do together." It the difference between an autocracy and a democracy.

ezeflyer, I'm not worried about that. He doesn't go shoving his religion down anyone's throat. Did you read his speech?
kathyodat

Our Corporate Masters must really be scared. They're getting their $5000/hour whores like Limbaugh & Ingraham to quit trashing McCain and to get the Democratic Party nomination for Clinton. As good as the Corporate Cannibals are at fear-mongering, the reality of the past eight years of their larceny is so bad the whores might have to find honest work next year. I forgot who in FDR's administration said "... if someone is sleeping on the floor, you can't scare him with fairy tales about taking away his bed."

It's the deeply Christian part of the speech that bothers me.

anne faith, thank you. I googled Andrew Sullivan, a conservative Libertarian, I learned. Imagine, left and right coming on board with the candidacy of Barack Obama.

ejmurphy, I agree, it would be an act of grace for Hillary to withdraw. Her quest is hopeless and destructive, but as this speech shows, Obama refuses to let her damage him. Talk about turning swords into plowshares. From here on out, I believe she can only damage herself.

That speech affected me deeply. The courage, honesty, the penetration into the core of America's problems which as he pointed out are beyond race, do make me think of Lincoln's speeches. And what Linoln wanted to accomplish. I wish everyone in America could hear that speech.

kathyodat

As a strong supporter of Obama, and as someone who is familiar with the viciously anti-Clinton hatred of many white conservatives, I expected this cross-over voting. I wish every state outlawed it, because it has allowed dirty tricksters to defeat good people many times. Cynthia McKinney was done in by rabid right-wing crossovers in Georgia. And, if Hillary wins the nomination, she is sure to lose against McCain and we will suffer the horrors of more years of repressive Republican mis-government. Under George W. Bush they have set us back a generation. Under McCain, well meaning but wrong-headed, we'll be pushed back even farther. Poor America. Hillary, please come to your senses and quit this race for the good of your country.

Here was Andrew Sullivan's reaction to Obama's Philadelphia speech (which sums it up much better than I ever could): "this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history... I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity."

Vern and Kathy, I agree. Fabulous, brilliant, moving, sincere speech. This is the leader we've been waiting for! He just went up in my book twenty fold.

Kem - seems either way McCain loses - which we both agree is a good thing.

RE: And as for the contention, offered above, that Clinton and her ilk sell out the working class, while pandering to the "yuppies" (please forgive the general terms, but I'm writing a post, not a sociology paper)

At least you didn't use the acronym for "Dual Income No Kids" in your statement. ;)

Thanks for the links Kathyodat, that was a good speech!

It must have been a bit surreal when Obama heard a faint echo of his grandmother's words in the reverend's sermon but directed at a different aspect of himself. Reminds me when me and my son were watching the battle on the Plains of Abraham on Canada: A People's History when my son asked me which side our ancestors fought on. I told him that we were the people in the middle everyone was shooting at (that grandma's people were fighting grandpa's people).

What was inspirational was that Obama saw his grandmother's racist views as a distraction and her love and devotion to him as real. It would still have messed him up a bit as a kid, but, as an adult, let him see past the talk of fear to the issues we all share.

What Obama refers to as a "distraction" others would call an attempt at divide and conquor.

RE: you guys are major tools, such suckers.

As long as they are the cherry ones - don't really care for the yellow or orange ones.

you guys are major tools, such suckers.

I urge everyone to go to the link below for an excerpt of Obama's speech on race or to the link below for the full speech (longer). The power, honesty and vulnerability of that speech stunned me. More than ever I want to see him President. I long suspected he could heal the racial wounds of this country, partly because he brings people together to solve problems and partly because he himself is a Black man free of the history, the baggage, of slavery. Now I see what is his real power. He doesn't react to situations with anger and vengeance, but rather seeks solutions. I'm not suggesting he's Christlike or perfect, but he is a political rarity, a grownup, who is not being dragged around by his ego.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_el_pr/obama_race

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/18/america/18obamaspeech.php

kathyodat

No she doesn't. Ever hear about the folks who voted for Bush "against their own best interests?".

I have to object to the conclusion that only Obama can beat McCain. The polls are so close right now, any of the three could conceivably win. In fact, currently, Clinton averages slightly better than Obama, beating McCain where Obama loses. (Though this has changed repeatedly and could change again.)

More pertinent to this article, I note that in Ohio, Repubs voting in the Democratic primary split about 50-50, for Obama and Clinton. Part of our strategy has to be to get our former opponents voting for us, so Repubs voting for a liberal candidate is not inherently suspect. And if Repubs are duplicitously voting for Clinton, why were equal numbers voting for Obama? If Clinton is truly more right wing than Obama, disaffected Repubs crossing the line would be far more likely to go a little bit left (Clinton) than farther left (Obama).

And as for the contention, offered above, that Clinton and her ilk sell out the working class, while pandering to the "yuppies" (please forgive the general terms, but I'm writing a post, not a sociology paper) why is it that the greater part of Clinton's support comes from the working class, while Obama's comes more from the white collar "professionals" or "yuppies"? Are those in the working class who support Clinton mystified and unable to determine their owen best interest? Are the upper class Obama supporters unaware that their "interest" lies more with Clinton than Obama? By the measurement of who their supporters are, Hillary is actually more progressive than Obama, in that she enjoys greater support among the working class.

Anyone see Obama's speech?

Such eloquence. Lincolnesque.

If it's Obama, McCain will lose in 50 states.

If it's Hillary, McCain will lose in 44 States.

The back and forth between Hillary and Obama is pointless. The bottom line is that Obama can beat McCain and Hillary cannot. Our choices have been narrowed down to Obama or McCain. Even the Repugs can see that.

Don't be too hard on goppers. Cheating, stealing, lying, obfuscating, "outing" undercover CIA agents, etc. is the only way they can hope to win. It's mathematical. Goppers seem to understand this, even while attacking Dems for doing the same things they routinely do. That's why I left the GOP in the late '90s; the hypocrisy got to be too much to stomach.
I blame the Dem leadership (what a joke) more. Mendacity is what the GOP is all about. Dems have enabled these criminals by allowing themselves to be so easily manipulated. Impeachment is off the table? Unbelievable.

Just goes to show that the average Joe-Republican is just as much a piece of scum as the leaders of the party. None of them respects (or even knows about) the Constitution, human rights, or democracy. They certainly reflect one another's "values."

Obama is supposed to be giving a live speech on race fairly soon (within the next half hour). Not sure if Clinton is speaking after or not. She may wait a bit to give her reaction to it.

Ann Colter - one has to take her seriously to hate her. Who takes this joke seriously!

Stephane Dion (with Rae and Finley) is supposed to give a speech any time too. I wonder if they will preempt Dion for Obama or Obama for Dion.

On March 17th, 2008 4:05 pm, adrienrain wrote:

"Hillary is the most hated woman (if not person) in the US - and deservedly so."

Most hated woman? Poor Ann Coulter...she worked so hard at her trade, and now she's going to learn that she's not at the top of the list.

No, with statements like those from adrienrain, one can't help but wonder how this nation got into the shape it's in.

mary lou: That isn't an accusation. It is common knowlege who her voting bloc turned out to be. A bit of a surprise to the DLC "New Democrat" controlling wing whose strategies included selling out the working classes(they never even uttered the word--"working class" it was always "middle-class")to pander to upscale Yuppies and the corporate class. they count on people being ignorant to their record and their agenda. Otherwise you would know she is no "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination. If her campaign is any indication of her ability to manage, she flunks that test--although she started out with the name-recognition, the funds and the presumption that it would be a cakewalk. I do not think she is particularly smart--although that was another deliberately planted meme--in opposition to the perception that Bush is stupid. In fact, she is "smart" similarly to Bush in that she is shrewd, unethical, calculating, unapologetic and brazenly ambitious. Bush was actually remarkably successful--with the exception of privitizing Social Security, precisely because under the DLC, there wasn't really a strong, persuasive counter-argument. The Bush model eventually imploded because it was not sustainable. Eventually reality, as the great taskmaster, exposes the fabricated construction and we are where we are--bogged down in war with no cause and a looted economy--both with no accountability.
Don't you think, Mary Lou that it would be worth our while to risk even a smidgen of a hope of a possibility of change? Hillary Clinton's forays across the aisle were for anti-flag burning issues and violent video games, while Obama worked for ethical reforms and was known for his bipartisan accomplishment in Illinois and the US Senate.
Google Hillary Clinton right here on the Common Dreams website search option--and then get back to us.

United we stand, Divided we fall. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

If everyone will stop for a minute and realize we've been divided for a reason -- control, we may be able to unite and defeat this New World Government. If we don't, we'd all better just hunker down with the best cache of supplies we can get in a short amount of time and wait for them to show up at our front doors to see OUR papers!

Just because the Real ID was delayed from May of this year to 2016 doesn't mean they'll wait that long; more likely they're considering a chip into us instead. Be careful fellow traveler; we're all being manipulated so that we'll continue to stay asleep and work toward our own demise.

Don't think for a moment that this mortgate crisis is due to over a million Americans waking up one day and formulating a new financial product to sell to the banks with intentions of going into foreclosure. People were lied to, just like going into Iraq for oil and it's just another way for them to start bickering amongst a people intelligent enough to ban together if they're not diligent to see that doesn't happen.

IF Cheney isn't impeached, it's likely he'll send old George on a JFK limo ride, call martial law to suspend elections and then where will we be? So go on, argue with each other -- call in on your neighbor because you don't like their views -- that's what they want us to do; turn on each other. And everyone on this site is doing just that.

I will vote Democratic regardless of which one is running! Because I will under no circumstances vote Republican! I have grown to loathe their party and every corrupt thing they stand for. It is so riddled with fascist's now they don't even look like they are an American political party!

It's sad that the idea of helping each other doesn't fly for single payer health care, but when I explain the costs and benefits that does fly. Is there any hope for this country? Americans can be so unbelievably self-centered.

kathyodat

Siouxrose, you brought up good points about Obama vs Hillary. Unfortunately some people aren't paying attention. I doubt these posts back and forth have changed any minds.

BR-001's post about the empathy deficit is actually scary. i couldn't understand how Americans could blithely go on their way while this horror in Iraq was going on, but that's it. In SiCKO, and when I talk about single payer health care, people say "Why should I pay for someone else's health care" In Europe and England, they say "We all have to help each other". What a tragic difference in outlook. And Americans don't understand what this outlook actually costs us. Remember Reagan's pretense that trickle-down economics would lift all boats? All it did was just make everyone care about their own damn boat. And we're still there. Well, Obama is offering something different, that we're all in this together, and our young people are responding to it. And so are others who choose inclusiveness over divisiveness. Hillary and her supporters don't get that.

kathyodat

And KUDOS back to you!

kathyodat

Republicans are starting to love Hillary because they know that McCain has a better chance to beat her in November.

KUDOS TO: TIM BOYLE, IAMMYSELF, RSJ, BR-001 (US suffers an "empathy deficit" on a mssive scale), KATHYDOT (10:10 posting, in particular).

I lean towards Obama for lots of reasons. The hope factor, the unknown factor, that he's less bought by the "old" elite interests, that he will talk to our "enemies," that he presents at least the SEMBLANCE of choice.
Hillary is a female warrior and our nation is in drastic need of OTHER. Its soul is on the line.

mary lou, if Clinton is such a known quantity how come we are not allowed to see her tax returns? That has been a tradition. What other traditions is she planning on breaking, or will that be on a need to know basis?

You left out a big difference between Hillary and Barack. He wants a positive campaign focussed on issues and themselves, she wants a negative campaign focussed on her opponent.

kathyodat

ardee, I am 65 years old and have voted in every presidential election I was old enough to vote in. With the exception of 1 election, I always voted for the person I wanted to win (and that was the first and last time I held my nose - for George McGovern who threw Thomas Eagleton off the train). It is my Constitutional right to vote for the candidate of my choice and I do not need to be told by you or anyone else who I am supposed to vote for.

I am not a typical Obama voter. I don't believe there is one, with the exception of one commonality. We want to see a change which Clinton is not offering, a shift from fearmongering (3am phone calls) and a call for us to rise up and make our voices heard for what we want. Obama attracts a wide spectrum of people; people who have been apolitical, independent swing voters, recovering Republicans, Democrats who in the end will vote for any Democrat (many while holding their noses if Obama isn't the candidate - being that Hillary isn't making herself very popular with Obama supporters), and people like me who vote for Nader or Green candidates. It amazes me how undemocratic so many Democrats are, assuming they have the right to tell me who I must vote for. I'm not even a Democrat. Why should I vote for someone I don't want to see elected? I've been a political activist since 1965, marching against the Vietnam War in countless demonstrations, outrunning police goons in Berkeley, vigiling and demonstrating at the Redwood City napalm plant, releasing doves at the Stanford stadium during the military show (they were smuggled in under my coat). I've surely written more letters to the editor than the years of your life, however old you might be, unless you're as old as Methuselah. I've worked on progressive campaigns, three of us in Eugene started the organizing committee for Nader for President in 2000 which grew large enough to have a storefront, I've worked on progressive state initiatives, I promote progressive candidates and the National Initiative with almost everyone I talk to, including billing clerks (I just start out easy with a comment about how things are going and if they respond, we're on a roll - most people do want information). Don't tell me I just go home and sulk. And I will keep on working for what I believe is right and I will never sell out for the lesser of two evils and if more people did the same we wouldn't be in this fix. Go look in the mirror.

kathyodat

vern, i find it interesting that you accuse clinton supporters of being uninformed and/or uneducated. beforkids thinks the same thing. i think a lot of clinton supporters agree with me that here is a bright, hardworking, progressive, competent candidate who has demonstrated an ability to work across the aisle and an unbelievable ability to ignore the hateful comments of her detractors. the difference between hillary and barack is that hillary is a known quantity while barack still has not shown us what fires he would be putting out in a fall election. they are both politicians. i trust hillary clinton to work hard and competently for the people of the united states of america. based on this set of comments, most of those people do not deserve someone they so revile.

That's rather patronizing Ardee.

It does seem to me that Obama is the anti-Clinton. Considering your post, it is with some irony that the newest, most politically naive posters seem to defend Clinton. It is because they know less and we all suffer because she exploits their ignorance. It is no wonder that the least educated support Clinton. Supporting educational opportunity is one thing, but it would actually benefit clinton to keep people dumbed-down.

I believe that this post, from Be For Kids, typifies the Obama voter:

"Obama has brought me out of the woodwork, but if he isn't the candidate, I'm outta here. And so are a lot of young people. it isn't just his message of change and bottom up involvement that fires them up, they are seeing something they've never seen in politics before. Someone who actually feels trustworthy."

The duty of every citizen to participate in the process is seemingly overlooked here. That the tearing down of our constitutional rights, the illegality of the Iraqi War, the shrinkage of our Middle Class, the loss of jobs across our economy, the migration of our money to fewer and fewer seems secondary to this poster to the cult of personality of Senator Obama.

I ahve been politically active for a very, very long time, perhaps longer than this poster has been alive. I do not see anything of value in this type of support, basically a version of, 'if we dont play by my rules Im taking my ball (vote) and going home to sulk'.

All I can say is, you have two choices Be For, you can be a good citizen and make intelligent choices or you can go home until you grow up enough to do the former......

Clinton is right out of the Rove playbook. The "fun part" for her is plumbing the depths, pandering to the lowest human lizard brain reactions--fear and hate, while projecting all her flaws on others. The Bush agenda promoted their own version of "reality" using the corporate-Zionist media as their bullhorn. Now the chickens come home to roost--and the fairy castle built in the airy realms fade under the hot blazing sun of stark reality. The war, the economy, all built on fabrications... Witness Clinton repeating the same pattern of operating within false constructs of her own reality to mold consensus--again using Bush-Rovian ploys to prop up the Bush-Clinton dynasty. She might be able to smear Clinton crap on our highest hopes of the Left, but it comes at the cost of losing to the Right. That is some consolation--preservation of the status quo while maintaining the grip on the Democrats--even if it means a McCain presidency--which she has already stated, in so many words, that she would prefer.
You couldn't get me to vote for Clinton if you held a gun to my head.
Drive out the Bush-Clinton dynasty!

sLiMsHaDy, glad you were helped. I wish you well. I know that here in Oregon the taxpayers heavily subsidize public employee health insurance. It's a major financial burden for many people whose own plans fall woefully short or are prohibitively expensive. There's a huge bill to be paid, and with the insurance industry involved, it's skyrocketing every year.

kathyodat

"I think we need more people who think about others and fewer people who only think about themselves. Certainly in leadership positions."

Agreed and then some!

kathyodat-

Sen. Clinton wants everyone to be able to utilize the FEGHB plan. Like you, and most everyone else who cares about people, I want the Single Payer concept. That day is not here yet.

As an enrollee in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, I can tell you though that it is as good of an insurance program as there can be under such an inane system. I have had cancer- the services proscribed by the doctor are readily made available, the bills do get paid, and that is at the easily affordable level of $20.00 bi-weekly. There are lower costing plans and there are more expensive plans that individuals/families can choose from to suit their needs. It's a start. It definitely cuts out the profit driven insurance industries ability to decide what kind of care one is entitled to.

I know that that is only one area of concern among many regarding Sen. Clinton, but she is not being devious with this particular model for health care.

By the way, sLiMsHaDy, thank you for your kind and generous words about me. I'm not very popular with some posters because i won't let up on Hillary. But I think some other posters are right. People will believe what they want to believe, and ignore facts they don't want to look at or have to defend. I've noticed when I ask about things Hillary has done, I get no answer, I just get called a Hillary hater. Not a very effective debate method, to my thinking.

I still think it's all about her. When she ran for reelection for the Senate, with no major challenges, she spent a fortune on her campaign, stashed away a huge war chest for herself while other Democrats were campaigning and donating some of their war chests for those in close races. It's hard to respect that self centered kind of behavior.

I remember when I was riding the bus, a passing driver yelled that the bus was on fire. The driver threw open the doors, yelled "Everyone out!" and was the first one off the bus. I looked around and everyone was racing off the bus, no one was looking to see if anyone needed help. As it turned out no one did. I think we need more people who think about others and fewer people who only think about themselves. Certainly in leadership positions.

kathyodat

Ginkofig,

I was referring to kathyodat's BeForKids March 17th, 2008 9:51 pm remark regarding links. I am probably where you are at with regards to being wary of some of the over the top "you're either with us or you're wrong" partisan displays of allegiance to one or the other Dem candidate.

Because of my POV, I have been subjected to some shrill, hateful slaps by some posters/poseurs who think that they know it ALL. I was extending an olive branch to kathyodat because I recognize her total commitment to Sen. Obama and her disdain for Sen. Clinton while still being able to explain her position much more gracefully than certain others.

" i think health care is a right and that universal health care is a must. it was hillary who made that her clarion call back in '93 or so."

I remember that, too. Politics is a dirty, DIRTY business
and while she is certainly no saint, I just do not believe that Sen. Clinton is the devil incarnate. I have relatives in Illinois, Democrat and (eww) Rethuglican affiliated, and they tell me that while Sen Obama is certainly not the devil incarnate, he is no saint either.

Time is running out to find a proper consensus because I do know that the current administration is evil to the core as would be John McSame.

gingkofig, did you miss my post of 9:51 where I posted the Obama info links?

I see you asked sLiMsHaDy to repost the links, so here they are:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Glad to hear you're a medical student. Also sorry because when I worked as an R.N. in a teaching hospital, I saw how residents were treated. Brutal.

Hillary's universal health care plan of 1993 wasn't going to be single payer. It was so complicated that even without Harry and Louise it was doomed. It just doesn't make sense to anyone but politicians and people freaking out over socialized medicine to give 1/3 of our health care dollars to the insurance industry as profit. HR 676, the Conyers/Kucinich bill would only make the government the payer. Medical decisions would be returned to medical professionals and their patients where they belong. The financial burden would be shared by all of our society, for the benefit of all our society. It's affordable, practical, and includes DENTAL! And there are no layers of plans "to fit your budget". All that means is some worthless cheap plans to fulfill the criteria of "being insured". With the bean counters still deciding what health care you get. Watch SiCKO, listen to what some of these CEOs are saying, it'll make you sick. That's one thing Michael Moore is good at is eavesdropping. You'd think these people would have the sense not to send memos or talk out loud.

kathyodat

Wow. Judging from the slim cross-section this post represents, Democrats (progressives? liberals?) have been torn asunder. Mission accomplished!

Only Americans are capable of dragging down and disemboweling America. It has ever been thus.

BTW ...
KaneJeeves sez: "You know what makes me saddest about this… Thinking about kids in school learning about American History, and Democracy, and elections. I'm sad about the day they find that they've been fed a line."

Would you feel better to know most of those kids are learning no such thing?

hi slimshady. i didn't get the links but am interested in anything you've got. re-post 'em!
thanks.

gingko, below are the first links I read about Obama. Since then I've picked up information piecemeal

kathyodat

You are a class act. You state your position clearly, provide "real" links to support your position, and you are not nasty about it. THAT is the way to present your POV effectively. Cheers!

I haven't read Obama's two books, but early on I did see a very good interview with him on Charlie Rose. His thoughtfulness and good character clearly came through.

Because I liked him did not cause me to 'dislike' Senator Clinton -- though I had/have questions about why she did not seem to do much in stopping the Rwandan Genocide. And, one wonders what happened to her husband's promises prior to the 1992 election to work hard for a 'living wage' for all Americans (as well as, good European-like technical schools for our non-book-loving young adults, also, Lathyodat has also pointed out several other of President Clinton's policies that may have been hurtful to our country.

However, some of Senator Clinton's campaign statements and tactics, as well as those of her husband ("you gotta do what you gotta do") and her staff -- have caused me to feel very uncomfortable about the prospect of Senator Clinton leading our nation and setting a moral example for our young (I do not feel that way towards Senators Dodd or Biden, nor towards John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich).
I would probabaly vote for her over McCain because of war and economy -- but I cannot imagine supporting her over Senator Obama.

Beforkids__ You are right that everything was not perfect and there were problems during Bill Clinton`s years, but he had to fight the Repubs to get anything done at all, and was able to keep the government operating when they tried to shut it down completely. There is always some groups in any administration that thinks they have been short-changed.

There was absolutely no comparison then with the disaster we have now for every group except the super rich. Most people then felt they had some chance for a decent life, while now it is questionable our country can keep from going into depression, and no one will have a future , unless they have a fortune safe in a Swiss bank.

There is no harm in bringing out some relevant things about the candidates, but this incessant mud slinging at the Clintons is not warranted, and has become a ridiculous waste of time. Hillary and Obama both have problems, but if not one of them, then who? We have some chance with either one of them to get our budget in better balance again by bringing our troops home and putting taxes on the rich as they are getting a free ride. There are more billionaires daily in this country that should be helping out with infrastructure and peoples needs while we argue around about nit-picking nonsense.

wow

Democracy is sure ugly.

While it surely does beat the alternatives can everyone please respect that we are posting on 'Common Dreams" and self-edit their language accordingly.

We all feel strongly about this race - and I don't mean to be condescending but we can support our candidate and express our views without the hateful language.

Let's not mimic Bush and the neo-cons and defend our views by destroying the very values we claim to uphold.

Hilary Clinton and Rush Limbaugh sitting in a tree...

You know the rest -

:-) ;-)

But why won't she release her tax returns. Obama did that long ago. What could Hilary be hiding? What is she afraid of?

gingofig, you might as well give it up. These Obama supporters are hateful, as hateful as I have ever seen people. They say things that most of us would never say in public. We might think it in our darkest moments, but when we came to our senses realize that hate does nothing to convince others. For the past 7 1/2 years, I have felt strongly and sadly about the direction our country is going; I am learning through this primary season that hate gets us nowhere, but gets turned on ourselves. There is plenty of that displayed on this website.

Our economy is messed up now. Who is going to be stupid enough to vote for another Mad Dog of War Republican, e.g. John McCain? Shillary isn't much better as she voted for the illegal attack on Iraq, is against the banning of cluster bombs, and will get us into a war with Iran.

Why does she praise McCain and trash Obama? She puts winning above the Democratic party. I guess if she figures if she can't win, no other Democrat should. She would rather John McCain won instead of Obama. She's a monster.

Gee, MaxheMust, if that happened, we would have to create whole new industries to employ people. You know, like alternative energy, restoring infrastructure and our manufacturing base, providing educational opportunities for more than the privileged. Just imagine seeing "Made in USA" on the products you buy. And at the rate our dollar is sinking it wouldn't cost any more either.

kathyodat

By the way, kernel, that Clinton budget was improved on the backs of the working poor. Clinton ran an austerity budget. Remember his campaign promises? Infrastructure, jobs creation? Now everyone can have two low wage jobs instead of one living wage job. Bill Clinton set that up. Not Reagan, Bill. Bush simply took the baton from bill and ran with it.

kathyodat

Barack Obama has said several times that he will talk to our enemies in an attempt to make peace with them. Hilary says that can't do that, that he's being too naive.
Barack says in reply "YES WE CAN!" We can and must talk to our enemies if we want to make peace with them. Arrogant as hell American leaders refuse to talk to our enemies, because peace is the greatest threat to the military industrial complex. If the corrupt politicians made peace with our enemies, the biggest and most profitable industry in the world go out of business forever.

Hilary says Obama doesn't have enough experience. Enough experience for what? Enough experience to be corrupted to the core? Experienced enough to be the property of the NY billionaire Jewish lobby, as well as the old mafia money in NY?

Hilary has truly acted like a monster. Rather than address the issues, rather than release her tax reports (as Obama did long ago), she has persistently attacked him.

I used to respect Hilary very much, but she has become almost as repulsive to me as GW Bush - as a result of her support of dubya's so called "war on terror" and her negative campaign against Barack Obama. Winning is everything to her. Even her campaign workers have been at each other's throats. If she gets a WH staff - would they be any different? She has clearly become corrupted and addicted to power and the limelight. She lusts for it, but she's far more emotional than mental and she's very hot headed. She is a recipe for disaster.

cranky_chatter March 17th, 2008 9:22 pm
"There's no reason to talk to them sometimes."

and sometimes it's important not to avoid the truth.....

thank you for flushing out that very obvious point every one seems to carefully overlook.

those voters in mississippi, ohio, new hampshire, texas that live in white enclaves are having a difficult time overcoming their prejudices, i listened to a caller on cspan yesterday describe dutch country pennslyvania as bavaria between liberia and lebanon, he was proud of that (comparing philly and ptsbrg to lebanon) i do believe obama has done well in overwhelmingly white states - especially out west, WA state for example. i think this prejudice exists in areas where there aren't multiracial interactions, and where there are fewer educational/economic opportunities. there fore they feel threatened by outsiders (racism-anti immigrant).

this racism is masked when MSM frames the issues:

first that,republcans are voting for clinton believeing mccain can win against clinton in the general(i suspect some americans are offended obama made it this far)

and secondly, that clinton excels in poorer/less educated white areas b/c they're concerned w/ the economy and hillary has bills intuitive experience (right?). it's ironic that even MSM considers hillary wall street's lady. what's the disconnect the missing element that explains why the poor would vote for the candidate that actually is appreciated by the elites - when her entire family is leahcing off of long established political connections (maybe racial attitudes, islamophobia, and lack of education).

i realize this is very simple analysis. and some people may actually believe this isn't the case. regardless there's no question who has exploited this issue (clintons,limbaugh) and what are their motives?

the youth and and blacks of this country clearly know what's being said, what ferraros, clinton's comments really are about. back of the bus.....

in august they will express themselves en mass one way or the other.

in addition to the will of everyone else in the world (except maybe the israelis),
it's one more legitimate reason (yes jena bush your next president will be a black man) the democratic party should choose barak obama to be the next president of the US...

...peace.....

maybe its because she is a Republicrat, and if she wins it will read...

Clinton/Lieberman 08

Kernel, you're wrong, I was on the other end of the spectrum. Yeah, Clinton raised taxes on the rich - some - but he signed NAFTA, death warrant to our manufacturing base, signed the Telecommunications law, ending media diversity, signed welfare "reform" which moved millions of poor children from poverty into dire poverty and many others. The bills he signed came down on the side of the corporations instead of the working people. He and Hillary are the founders of the DLC whose first allegiance is to lobbyists and completely anti-union. He did put able administrators in the agencies which made them efficient. In stark contrast to Bush who was intent on destroying the Federal government and used cronyism to do it (my computer says cronyism isn't a word). I say Bush has made it a word. If you stack Clinton against Bush, he looks good, but then so does McCain or almost anyone short of serial killers. Can't we do better than that?

cranky_chatter, I can guess how you figured out my username, although no one else ever has. Not even my brother who has reason to be able to do so.

kathyodat

Reading these posts on CD is like craning my neck to see a horrible traffic accident - I can't help but look, but it's a terrible thing I'm seeing.

I've come to the conclusion that nothing the Obama supporters say about Obama or about Hillary will change the Hillary supporters' minds one bit, and vice versa - the Hillary supporters aren't going to change the Obama supporters' minds.

It's kind of comical, but also sad and frustrating. It's frustrating, because a lot of this is perception. He's a race baiter. No SHE's a race baiter. You're only voting for him because you hate women. You're only voting for her because she's a woman. She's only voting for him because he's black. Blah blah blah.

You can't PROVE that one candidate is better, or more progressive, or more promising, or more talented, or more honest, or more intelligent than the other. You make your case the best you can, but all of it is filtered through our perceptions of these two candidates.

It's also frustrating, and sad, because this is exactly what the Republicans want, and expect, from Democrats. Democrats are so predictable, so good at shooting themselves in the foot, so good at circular firing squads.

The Repugs have the ability to rally around one candidate -- no matter how much some of them hate that candidate - because they're united in a common purpose, which is to stop the "liberals" from taking over the White House.
Their hatred of liberals (or blacks or women) surpasses their hatred of Republican candidates that they think are not conservative enough.

The Dems, on the other hand, are so invested with being "right" about their candidate that they will fight each other to the death to prove it, even if they destroy themselves in the process.

I consider myself a recovering Democrat. That is, I've stopped being a Democrat because it's just too toxic to remain one. I care, but I have to force myself not to care, because I'll just be disappointed and heartbroken again. But it is like a drug: I want to believe that this candidate will be different, but I know better. It's hard to break old habits, and I've been a Democrat my whole life. But not anymore. And this back biting and pissing and moaning and name-calling and totally self-destructive behavior is one big reason (not the only one) I'm not a Democrat anymore.

I've been betrayed and disappointed and heartbroken and lied to too many damn ties.

Do we, the liberals, progressives, and those on the left (some of whom are Dems, some who are not) have the ability to come together, to rally for a common purpose: getting the criminals out of the White House, the halls of Congress, and the courts? I really don't think we do. But until we do, then we'll just have more of the same: McCain will be our next president.

gingkofig, I don't hate anyone, not even Bush. But some people behave in ways that are unacceptable to me. That includes Hillary and Bush. I've only voted for 2 Democrats in my life, LBJ who lied and McGovern who betrayed Eagleton. After that I promised myself i would never again hold my nose to vote for someone. Obama is the first Democrat since then who actually might get elected that I wouldn't have to hold my nose to vote for.

I appreciate your willingness to learn more about him. The more I learn about him the better I like him. And I don't hate anyone on this site. One of my best friends here is a Hillary supporter. He's open about it, he doesn't like some of the things she does, but he doesn't trust Obama. Well, I can't say I know Obama well enough to trust him but what I've read from his past, I'm willing to take a chance on him. I'm even willing to bet on him. Normally I only make sure bets, but these are trying times and I have a strong feeling about his sense of ethics and progressivism.

Obama has repeatedly asked Hillary to join him in running a positive campaign, not talking about each other, but about themselves and the issues. She's not interested.

gingko, below are the first links I read about Obama. Since then I've picked up information piecemeal. Such as, when Alice Palmer invited him to run for the state Senate seat she was vacating to run for the US Congress, he told her he didn't want to set up an organization and have her come back and change her mind. She assured him it wouldn't happen. But when she lost the primary, that's exactly what she did. He didn't back down and agonized over his advisers' telling him to challenge her petition signatures for the ballot. He ended up doing that, but didn't feel good about it. Well, all of his competitors had used out of date poll lists and none of them qualified to be on the ballot. There's a difference between playing hardball and using lies and distortions against your opponent, and that's where the Clintons have crossed the line.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

kathyodat

Beforkids__ What basis do you have for stating (8:16)that if Hillary gets in we will get our pockets picked like Bill did?

Seems to me that he did just the opposite by raising taxes on the well off which was not appreciated. You may be one of those that got hit which means you are in good shape.

Everyone forgets (or never knew) that Clinton came in after Bush 1 had created a big budget deficit and every year for eight years the budget was improved until the last few years we had a budget surplus and talked of paying down the national debt. I don`t call that picking our pockets.

Part of the reason Clinton did a good job with our economy is that he picked his cabinet and advisors on ability instead of the Bush method of vetting them according to religious views.

kathyodat one day at a time

It's mysterious eh?

The reason they seem so unreasonable... so crazy and wildly illogical... so intractable... so abjectly loyal, as if Clinton were Bush and they were Republicans... is that they're real reasons are unspeakable.

They don't like black people. They're afraid of black people.

It's that simple. I've been observing it for years. More often Southerners are far more teachable than Northerners; that are often only second or third generation Americans. They have no cultural affinity for African American people. They're incapable of getting past it.

There's no reason to talk to them sometimes.

The reason the bastards are voting for her, is because Obama scares the hell out of them. The very idea of a "colored" president freaks them out. So Rush Limbaugh tells his sheep to vote for Hilary.

Neither Hilary or McCain will rock their precious (and dreadfully F'd up) boat, so they're voting for the monster to keep the colored man out of the way.

Also, sadly many women are emotionally thrilled by the idea of having a woman president - even though Hilary is Tweedle Dee in a skirt, and McCain is TweedleDum.

this is silly kathy, i won't label myself. i voted for clinton both times, gore and kerry after that. hate me for it. it doesn't matter. what i'm uncomfortable with, and feel compelled to ridicule, is this rigid fervor that makes one feel justified in hating - actually hating! - the other fellow because he doesn't think like you. or labeling them or marginalizing them. i haven't read any of obama's books. he's certainly an exceptional man. its not him i'm really focusing my energy on with these posts. its his followers. there's something frightening about people that write posts with such authoritative sounding proclamations about the evil of one side or the other.
what a mess it all is - our political system. its corporatization, the flaws of the lobby, the comical sense that there is actually a difference between left and right. it feels hopeless.
this is rambling i know but if you want to change peoples minds, don't preach at them. don't label them or come across like you're here to save them from their own ignorance.
i'm rolling over now - you want to make another obama convert? i'll be your experiment. tell me what to read and where to look. but you won't make me hate hillary.

gingko, what do you call yourself? And do you approve of Hillary's behavior?

kathyodat

now i'm a 'hillary apologist"? thanks for the spittle kathodat.

No, gingkofig, Obama is not uniquely chaste, that's reserved for Kucinich. but he does energize the young people and he refuses to resort to the slime tactics of the Clintons or accept lobbyist money, which is Hillary's main financial pipeline. Consider the old adage "follow the money". She's a DLC founder, who needs more of that? Bill Clinton accelerated the migration of ntional wealth to the richest Americans, and the Clintons are now part of that group and obviously intent on increasing their take. Hillary refuses to release her tax returns, first time I've heard of a candidate doing that, but I could be wrong. And when Obama challenges her to do it, she screams "Ken Starr!"

It's amazing to me that all you Hillary apologists have no problem with her behavior. Is this the model we want to set for young people, to look the other way when politicians use lies and smears about their opponents and cheat and lie about their own finances? They're howling about Obama involved with Rezko in buying a house, what a can of worms would be opened if the Clinton finances were made public. Fat chance of that happening. Don't tell me they made $60 million in 7 years selling autobiographies and giving talks.

I'm sure Republicans had their own reasons for voting for either candidate, but my own family and friends know Republicans who told them they are disgusted with the Republican party and are planning to vote for Obama for President because they like his message. Same with independents. And he has coattails, something we will need. Hillary has neither. And she's not making friends with her bloody war on Obama. Of course Clinton loyalists don't care what she does. But if she manages to win, they will find out what she will do. Pick everybody's pockets. like Bill did.

kathyodat

RSJ and cranky_chatter, you are both right with your posts. Thank you for speaking out.

Scott Helman thanks for letting me in on the dirty little secret americans don't honestly express their opinions in the polls (as though americans honestly expressed their opinions about anything - seems one of the prerequisites of capitalism is secrecy). as a nation we've watched too many game shows like let's make a deal and the price is right.

personally i think clinton/mccain yields quite a bit of entertainment value but i'm starting to see hope of some serious humor w/ an obama candidacy...

(satire on)

lets cash in before the election shall we..... join cnn in 8 days when we unmask the real rev wright, the comments we didn't hear a couple of months ago. rev wright slamming poor little whites CEO's and former slave owners..... then straight from SAN ANTONIO recent revelations revealed from haggee's book published 2 years ago. hitler went to catholic schools (and the pope is german.. connect the dots folks). this summer before the conventions, CNN brings you the important debate moderated by john king, the debate america wants to hear - the ideological standard bearers of malcom x (if he was a christian) and john birch. the economy, the occupation of iraq these issues are secondary folks it's hagee on wright only on CNN...CNN welcomes both republican and democratic viewers... don't miss it... back to our new commentator geraldine ferraro......

(satire off)

...peace....

Watch The Hour (cbc.ca/thehour) tonight (video should be up in a few hours) because there is a very funny piece in the news section (half way through) about Rapper DMX and Obama:

RE: - vaudree, Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Chavez. How come that was no big deal? Oh yeah, because he wasn't talking about America the Great. Way too many people still think we're the most wonderful benevolent country on earth.

Kathyodat, I thought it was because the Americans were so successful in their many attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. On the CBC, there was some talk of whether the show violated CTRC (ie FCC) guidelines because of the call to off someone. CTV was honest for the reason why Pat Robertson, an American comic, figured democratically elected Chavez should be offed:

Robertson, 75, told a Monday broadcast of "The 700 Club" that U.S. operatives should consider "taking him out," saying it would be "cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.'' ...

Robertson said Chavez is "a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050824/Pat_Robertson_050823/20050824/

Assassination has been a policy of both the Dems and Repugs for at least the last couple decades if not longer and neither is going to point a dirty finger at the other over this issue. Does Nader ever speak out on this issue?

Sicko simplifies things. If you wish to privatized something, you can either starve it so that people will stop fighting to save it or do so when no one is looking (disaster capitalism style) - Paul Martin and Stephen Harper have done both.

RE: - It's now clear that obama is fighting a war on two fronts: the republicans (i.e., traitors to the constitution, violators of ethics like limbaugh) and the hillary democrats.

Diana, the same can be said of Clinton fighting a war on two fronts - the whole thing resembles Chinese checkers right now.

RE: - Hillary Clinton is a proud member in good standing of the Democratic Leadership Council — AKA 'Republican Lite' — and she's received more corporate campaign donations this election than any other candidate, Dem or Republican.

I don't like Clinton and the Pug-lite comment seems fairly consistent in that she definitely doesn't represent the Wellstone branch of the party. But Corporations do try to influence the winner. That said, the longer the Dem race continues, there more money both Clinton and Obama will have to spend fighting each other rather than fighting Repugs. McCain isn't spending any Repug money right now - his world trip is being funded at taxpayer expense.

RE: - BTW, Vaudree, I didn't realize Canada was that close to new elections. Good luck with getting rid of the noxious Harper.

Canada has a Minority government so they have been minutes away from the start of an election for over a year and a half. If the NDP, Bloc and Liberals (aka the chicken shits) voted together on a Confidence Motion they can bring down the government and Canada would have another election. If the Liberals win 3/4 by-elections, they will cooperate with the NDP and Bloc and bring down the government at the very next opportunity. If they win only 1 or 2, the Liberals will continue to prop up the Harper government. Check cbc.ca or ctv.ca around pm central and you will have your answer.

I looked at your article - brings back memories of that Blackout that hit Ontario and a few American states a few years back.

RE: - Think thousands of dead and injured… think Trillions in debt… think homeless, formerly middle class people, unable to take THEIR kids to the doctor.

Not even to a walk-in free of charge to get the ear drops or the amoxicilian! Come on! It can't be that bad.

RE: - I DO see the inroads that the xenophobe Dodd has made into the minds of Democrats, and frankly… THAT is alarming.

There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with Lou Dobbs, but Dobbs is unhappy with NAFTA - which is a good thing that should be exploited:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_MR7tL7tWs

annika - I object to your choice of 'idiots' but you make me laugh.

"Before you all carry on like the useful idiots you are, you might want to read it. Here's a key excerpt:"

Perhaps watching that capitalist training cartoon 'Thomas and Friends' with my kids is good for my humor :-)
So is this what Obama learned from the Great Communicator? The simpler the message the more loyal the followers.

Thanks for the link!

Yes, apparently in the minds of many posting here today (nearly all convinced Obama is uniquely chaste among politicians) a republican vote for Obama comes from the heart, whereas a republican vote for Clinton comes from further south.

I suspect this corporate media piece is a response (pro-Obama of course) to Wayne Barrett's extensive piece on the extensive right wing support for Obama-- http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374100,374100,2.html

Before you all carry on like the useful idiots you are, you might want to read it. Here's a key excerpt:

"Sixteen of the 45 Democratic primaries and caucuses held before this week were open affairs, allowing Republicans and independents to take part, and Barack Obama has won 11 of those contests. He almost invariably carried the Republican vote, which accounted for as much as 9 percent of the total in Wisconsin and Texas, and frequently ran even stronger among independents, who represented a fifth or more of Democratic primary voters in state after state. The 75 percent of the Republican vote that he won in Missouri, for example, may have pushed him over the top, and certainly, when combined with his 67 percent of the state's much larger independent vote, it delivered many of the district-apportioned delegates to him. Republicans in Obama states like Washington, Wisconsin, and Virginia were even freer to cross the aisle, since by the time they voted, John McCain had already sewn up the GOP nomination. While Obama often won some of these states so handily that Republicans and independents could not have provided his margin of victory, there is no way to know how many delegates in close congressional-district contests will wind up in Denver because of the impact of Republican or independent voters. And there is no exit-poll data to measure their impact on the caucuses."

"I must live in a different America..."

No, you live in the "real" Amerikkka. Those are the things that the public is saying at the moment.
Unfortunately, the heavy hitting is only getting started.

This forum here represents a slice of the "left", and the acrimony and divisiveness is highly palpable where there should be unity in, and clarity of purpose.

It will be a rough ride, but perhaps, as others have stated, it is best time for this boat to sink. It has inflicted too much damage upon the world.

The contempt for Clinton is based upon her inhumane, extensive voting record. It is a reasoned and fact based disdain for the corporate lobbyist dominated DNC. People want AWAY from it.

People that are honestly dissuaded by these smear tactics are few... really.

Republicans will vote Republican in November and that's that. No real Democrat or anti-War Republican is going to be deeply effected by all this hullabaloo in the General Election. This is all about the primary... They'll ramp it up for the General but it will have negligible effect this time.

Think thousands of dead and injured... think Trillions in debt... think homeless, formerly middle class people, unable to take THEIR kids to the doctor.

Whether or not Obama's Pastor is more feisty and divisive than the Christio-zionist backers of McCain is going to be utterly silly after the Convention.

I DO see the inroads that the xenophobe Dodd has made into the minds of Democrats, and frankly... THAT is alarming.

Maybe most of you haven't heard about the Obama campaign policy of instructing people how to be "Democrats for a Day" to vote in primaries, or participate in caucuses. Happening now in PA, has happened in Texas and elsewhere. In Texas the instructions were particularly anti-Clinton, and aimed at Republicans: basically let's get rid of Clinton by supporting Obama. So lots of his support is temporarily crossing over Republicans and Independents that have no intention of voting for him if he gets the nomination.

I am somewhat surprised that so many here would believe this article, it's bullshit. So was Rush "Lim-baws" comments. It's a designed ploy and tactic used by the Gop "rat fu##ers", which is a vulgar term they use for dirty political tactics. It is not Obama the GOP fears as an opponent, It's Clinton.

And ~Learnfromthepast~, you are right on.

Oh please. Let everyone vote for the opposite of who they'd want in the White House and leave them to it. The Republicans who vote for Obama because they think a black man can't be elected and those who think Hillary can't be elected, or those who actually think either of those two candidates are better than McCain. Let them chase their own tails. We can't actually know the truth except by anecdote, and that is no truth at all.

Voting for Clinton to boost GOP?
Scott, your article is another blatant attempt to taint Hillary's candidacy with the same personal attacks used so successfully by the GOP.
The fact is we have no way of knowing how Republicans voted in the Democratic primary – in my conversations with my Republican friends they believe Hillary (and Bill) to be a stronger candidate against McCain.

In Virginia where I live I can report knowing of Republicans that voted for Obama because they want McCain to win. They 'know' that America is too racist to vote a black candidate into the White House.
And perhaps that is why Limbaugh rushed to 'support' Hillary. In a single stroke he pissed off the progressives against Hillary and with a wink let his listeners know that she was the real target. They know the code.

But given the recent negative press for the Obama campaign due to his Pastor's sermons Rush may have been too late.

The biased media hoopla attacking the Pastors comments and Obama is occurring despite the MSN's effort to go easy on their scrutiny of him while savage in their attacks of Hillary.
This problem for Obama is not something Hillary's fabled attack machine cooked up.
It was Obama's own words that called media attention to his Church and Pastor (no - it was not Ferraro) and as a consequence he is dealing with a white racist backlash surely to have been part of the GOP 'swift-boating' by McCain during the Presidential campaign.
Unfortunately for the GOP the racist dam broke a bit early and it is now giving Hillary a real chance to win the Democratic primary.

The war is a wonderful thing as long as the troop I'm supporting is someone else's kid.

gingkofig said: Everywhere I turn I hear very ardent Obama supporters speaking / writing about Hillary Clinton with the same irrational hatred and arrogance I hear from a "typical" ardent Bush supporter. Regardless of your party affiliation, she seems to be the go-to target for your venom. 90% of the posts for this article are from a rabid group of politico-masturbators full of the same shit - be it left or right.
What a joke. The fact that this article appears here at all means "mission accomplished" - more infighting, more spittle.
Get your heads out of your asses! The election will still be months away after the nomination is finished. Plenty of time to regroup. Vote your conscience and let others do the same without your whining. You fucking idiots.

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes! The Republican "dittoheads", as Rush used call his followers, believe the war in Iraq is a wonderful thing. Iran is next! The ones who don't are starting to say the Democrats started it! We are the good guys and we are saving the Iraqis! Obama tells them they are wrong (uppity!)and will probably deal with the obscene tax cuts Bush gave the very wealthy and corporations.

Its obscene selfishness. A retiree with a pension, investments, and social security will vote for the Republicans to save his $1000 +/- per year tax cut even though he knows the deficit is bankrupting us.

A single issue antiabortionist will vote Republican because they tell him they will somehow magically change the Constitution or the courts, and he doesn't give a flying f##k how many children have died in Iraq.

A doctor owning a multi million dollar practice will vote Republican because he gets to cry about the insurance money while he makes a fortune. Who knows what insurance reform might bring, and who cares about the uninsured, the war in Iraq or global warming? I've got mine!

We live in a very selfish country and the Repubs pander to that. They can do anything they want as long as their (expletive omitted) constituents get what they want. It isn't just the big corporations. We live in a fat know nothing country that seems totally clueless about the multiple disasters we are creating.

I think the crossover voters are afraid of Obama. There is a Clinton track record and things weren't too bad when Bill was president He pandered to the selfishness too. Obama is something of an unknown.

I must live in a different America. I heard a lot of hateful talk about him, about his race, about him supposedly being a Muslim, how he must be a trained terrorist - before the news broke about his minister. I work with a bunch of xenophobic right-wingers, they were practically foaming at the mouth today. Obama as the Democratic nominee would tear this country apart. I don't see him beating McCain, if he did, he'd be lucky to survive til inauguration day. I'm so sick of all the ugliness.....

Maybe Obama will sweep the nation with a significant vote count victory, uncontestable, but the GOP figure with Clinton the vote may be close enough to let Diebold do the rest to pull in McCain. A paranoid moment.

Vaudree (March 17th, 2008 12:43 pm) wrote: "It is the Multinationals (rather the Republicans) who seem to fear Obama more than Clinton. I think that this is because they know what Clinton will and will not do in office but Obama is so new to the scene that he is an unknown (and, to be honest, unknowable) factor."

Good points in your post, Vaudree. Hillary Clinton is a proud member in good standing of the Democratic Leadership Council -- AKA 'Republican Lite' -- and she's received more corporate campaign donations this election than any other candidate, Dem or Republican. I think it's telling that Clinton's campaign manager, Mark Penn, draws a paycheck from the same parent company as senior McCain advisor and lobbyist Charlie Black. The 'Corprocracy' doesn't really care, in my view, whether McCain or Clinton is elected: their interests will be protected, as well as their tax cuts. Obama is a wild card though, since he doesn't take money from lobbyists or PACs and has sponsored and passed laws to make government more transparent and ethical. I think his sudden jump to the front of the Dem pack shocked the Plutocrats, and now they are pulling out the stops to secure the nomination for Hillary. (Hence our corporately-owned trying to make Jeremiah Wright Obama's vice president.)

One way to look at all of this 'cross-voting' is that it reveals the desperation of the Republican Party and the weakness of McCain's candidacy. The right-wing media audience is dwindling -- Bill O'Reilly has lost more than a million viewers since 2005 and King Rush himself is being beaten in some markets by Air America Radio -- and the Republicans are saddled with abject failure on all fronts -- the economy, foreign wars, the housing crisis, jobs, a president who can't avoid his foot with his mouth, you-name-it -- and I don't think even another terrorist attack would bring the majority back into the fold -- why wouldn't Americans just as well angrily wonder why the GOP didn't protect them better after all of the extraordinary measures the Bush Adminstration has put in place to, allegedly, fight terrorism?

As this article by Eric Lotke at the Campaign for America's Future lays out, the American right-wing is collapsing under the weight of its own delusions, false promises, and incompetence. (Read "Conservatism is Dying" here:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/conservatism-dying-old-age-ill-health-and-neglect )

The question is: are we going to have DLC-Dem Hillary retarding progress on behalf of the corporate interests that have invested in her campaign, or Barack Obama who, accepting his flaws as a 'perfect progressive,' is the better option for starting us down the path to reclaiming our government and our indepedence from multi-national corporations?

BTW, Vaudree, I didn't realize Canada was that close to new elections. Good luck with getting rid of the noxious Harper.

With the economy going the way it is, I think people would vote Chelsea over McCain.

Don't think there's much to worry about when the country is sliding this bad economically, but I won't underestimate the American electorate.

wrong comarc: crossing over disingenuously is a class four felony in ohio...it's AGAINST the rules

mary lou: you're right with Klinton, the trains vill run on time... perhaps we should tap old Alexander Haig. Is he still alive? I always thought he'd be an effective administrator.

FACT: There are at least ten percent of the GOP that LOVE RON PAUL and I know plenty more that abhor Bush... refused to vote for him in '04. There is a VERY REAL REPUBLICAN ANTIWAR SENTIMENT. Those are Obama supporters too. The other crossovers are documented above.

Ya'all should get out more and talk to your neighbors.

"Like with everything else, if you want reform, voting Dem is not the answer."

COMarc,

You make a valid point, and I agree to an extent. The Democratic Party has whored itself out and most can see this.

The thing is, I think there is a small opportunity at this point to harness a lot of young energy that is going with Obama. If Obama wins, hopefully that energy will carry through after the election and some reform can happen. It will be up to the elders to keep the light on and lend a hand. I am slightly hopeful that something might change if this happens.

If this doesn't happen, if the Democrats continue to whore themselves and another generation is suckered, then I will withdraw to my garden and tend to my planting. There will be nothing left to do.