A vote for NADER is a vote for McCain.

Kem Patrick - that is just a plain stupid remark!

Senator Clinton has now become the darling of the right because they admire her filthy tactics and imitation being the sincerest form of flattery they are proud of her right wing campaign and the fact that she has come out of the closet as a full blown neocon ready to obliterate Israel's enemies.

Truth is often a matter of perspective or POV as well as the belief structure of the person doing the telling as well as the person doing the listening. We all have our own "truth" which is why coming to terms with differing accounts of a situation is often such a difficult task. There are lots of people in this world who live in either a black or white situation, then there is the rest of us who live in varying shades of gray. I don't know which is better, but the black/white people seem to have the hardest time dealing with conflicts and conflicting POV. NO ONE is 100% truthful and NO ONE is 100% dishonest about anything all the time. I doubt the writer of this nonsense has a spotless record with regard to telling the truth about everything; especially about situations that occurred over 10 years ago. I admire Senator Clinton and her quest for the Presidency. She has more energy, talent, inspiration, tenacity and true grit than anyone I have very known or admired in recent years. All the writer has done with this dribble is lay out his fears based on conjecture, which is not good enough for me to consider condemning someone who has worked so hard. If Senator Obama had done the "things" Senator Clinton has done, I doubt we would be having this tift, as the boys can always get away with so much more than the girls. I suggest everyone look for the good in our candidates as they are the ones who will continue to leard this nation once the Bushies have departed.

All the liberals are out there telling us all to once again vote for the supposed lesser of two evils. Yeah... just think about it though? What has the Black community got from all those years of supporting Bill Clinton? What did we all get? We got Dubya! And we'd get another Dubya sort of guy even if Obama were somehow to get the position for 4 or 8 years. It is symbiotic relation between the 2 parties, not an oppositional one.

Who is bigger? The citizenry, or these three candidates?
It is now time for the drumbeat of DEMAND for the teamup of Obama and Clinton to defeat McCain. Somebody ought to be telling them we expect them to play nice---and put a lid on Bill. It's OUR country, not theirs to squabble over.

Get out of the box folks. All the candidates are political whores. There is no two party system in our country anymore. There is one party - the Uncle Buck party - and its two branches. The Uncle Buck Party was founded by, and funded by, the corporate media. Only candidates who belong to the Uncle Buck Party will be given serious attention by the corporate media. The fix is in. We can change the king but not the kingdom.
Hoa binh

There is little chance Obama will do anything but clearly, he is way better than Clinton. Nader based his run on whether Clinton would get the nomination.

She doesnt care about democrats or anything other than winning for her own ego and purposes. The people who support her and ignore her kitchen sink tactics against another member of her party are cut from the same cloth as Bush supporters.

Are the same people who support her now the same ones who called Nader a traitor?

Because her saying McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama is worse than anything Nader ever was charged with doing.

First of all, I think it's time for Daniel David to tell us who employs him. Sir, are you or have you ever been an employee of the Democratic Party? You sound like a paid shill.

As for me, I've said here that I'll vote for DK. Probably not now, most likely, Ms McKinney. I MIGHT vote for Obama under certain circumstances, but NEVER for Hillary.

did I just experience deja-vu, or is this article double printed?

McCain is such an idiot, I imagine the GOP put him up as their candidate just so the american voters could have the satisfaction of voting against a Republican, while still getting their REAL neo-con candidate, HILLARY, into office.

I'm surprised that Hillary didn't run in both primaries...GOP and DEM...that way she could have doubled her chances of clawing her way to power.

The bottom line is: She voted to authorize the illegal invasion if Iraq, and THAT makes her unelectable, unless through the machinations of the Rovian Right, everyone else is discredited.

If there is any curse in the Democrat party, it is the fanatical ravings of people like Palley, and the ones that climb on his wagon of hate filled speech.

The last I knew, any candidate had the right to keep running until at least the primaries were done, and then see how things are looking. It gets a little old to listen to the Obamamaniacs continually calling for Clinton to drop out now.

For all anyone knows, maybe Obama should drop out, if that is the proper method to settle this contest. Hillary may be more qualified to beat McCain than Obama by the looks of things now.

I totally agree with what he said, and by the way, truth is not relative. There is no such thing as truthiness. And another thing, why can't Hillary close the deal, to judge her by the standards by which Obama is being judged. She enjoyed every advantage that was possible to have. Vast name recognition, a husband who was (past tense) beloved by millions, a huge automatic superdelegate lead at the start of the campaign, a run up to the campaign over several years time, an anticipation that carried the smell of inevitability with it, yet she couldn't hold her popular vote lead, her pledged delegate lead, and her superdelegate lead has steadily shrunk to almost nothing. She can't close.

Yep CURSE em!!! Sure glad we aren't in the situation we were in eight years ago. Bill Clinton lying about a BJ, Gas was expensive, almost $1.20 a gallon, food was expensive, unempoyment was near 4%, we only had a few billion in the national bank and the national debt was almost four trillion and falling. Rich people were being taxed and the evil Saddam was ruling Iraq. We dind't have the Blackwter troops to protect us, or a beautiful $740 million half finished pile of shit embassy in Baghdad. Yup, a damn mess it was.___ Curse em, curse em, curse em.

Long live King George. __ Hip Hip hooray. ___Shit.

Here we go again. People have been abandoning Hillary's campaign because of her dirty fighting tactics, and more and more people are suspecting her of the above mentioned "I told you so" strategy so she can run in 2012. It seems to me that those who stick with her either share with her the morals of an alley cat, or are so infatuated with the idea of anything with a vagina becoming president that they can't see any faults.

We have an opportunity to vote for someone with integrity and vision and with an ability to persuade people with opposing views to talk with each other and find some common ground for agreement, but she's doing her best to destroy him. So be it. We get what we deserve. I see Obama as a rare opportunity, and no, I don't know how far he can go, but certainly further than either of the other two self-serving candidates.

Personally, I rank integrity at the top of my standards for a candidate, with policy a very close second. If I had to choose between Hillary and Ron Paul, I would vote for Ron Paul, since Hillary has proven she has no integrity. I also have no patience with liars, which Hillary and Bill have shamelessly shown themselves to be. Fortunately, I have other choices, although I agree with about 50% of Paul's policies. And that 50% is pretty important, such as getting out of Iraq now, canceling NAFTA, respecting the Constitution, ending corporate welfare and dominance in our political lives. The other half is hard to take, although I do admire integrity.

kathyodat

Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Barack Obama on Monday for opposing proposals to suspend federal gas taxes this summer, a plan she and Republican John McCain have endorsed.

"My opponent, Senator Obama, opposes giving consumers a break," Clinton said at a firehouse. "I understand the American people need some relief," she added, implying that Obama doesn't get it.

"If we suspended it and made up the lost revenues, that's the best of both worlds," she said

Clinton said she would make up the lost revenue by imposing a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies.

WHO WILL PROMPTLY ADD THE COST OF THE WINDFALL TAX TO THE PRICE OF GAS.

IS SHE REALLY THIS STUPID???

the simple fact that both she and McShitstain are both promoting a meaningless gesture toward the public, that will at most put 30 bucks into the hands of each consumer over the course of the summer, and both are ganging up on Obamma with it, should remove any doubt in peoples minds who she is in bed with.

NEWS FLASH HILLARY....YOUR OPPONENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE MCAIN, NOT OBAMMA, YOU IDIOT

Kem, the Gini index shot up faster under Bill Clinton faster than even under Reagan. Not good news for the middle class. Also, he facilitated the policies and deregulations that are pushing the middle class into extinction. He's no working class hero. We've had Tricky Dick, the Teflon president, Slick Willy, and finally the sociopathic Decider. Now we have someone running who is willing to "throw the kitchen sink" at someone in her own party. Even McCain is running a cleaner campaign against Obama than she is. Shit is right.

kathyodat

canuckchuck, you're great! Love the above posts, so right on! I wish the public could figure it out. Obama should be hitting on that theme. Unless Congress is willing to rein in the oil companies, and clearly they aren't, it's all a charade. The last time the oil execs were hauled up before a Senate investigating committee, they got a free pass, let off with a "we'll try harder" promise. Look what that got us. Higher prices and profits than ever.

kathyodat

skeezyks,

Since you asked, I will repeat here that I am not "paid" by any Democrats or anyone else. Neither am I even affiliated with any candidate or party beyond my personal voter registration.

I speak consistently for Democrats because we have been governed a lot by Republicans with bad results. As far as I'm concerned, Obama and Clinton ought to literally flip a coin for who gets top billing and team up as a pair, the sooner the better. In my intuition this may be the only way Republicans don't eat our lunches again.

In fact, instead of another debate, we need the national Democratic coin flip on live TV. Winner gets to run for president, loser as VP. They could both do us a service that way and save face for either of their historic constituencies: Neither women nor blacks need to feel "defeated"----but only one of the two can make it this time AND DARNED IF THEY AREN'T NOW CRUISING TOWARD NEITHER.
Only a concentrated DEMAND from citizens can stop the sickening and unnecessary bickering.

We are having an election. There are; a McIntosh apple, a Granny Smith apple and a Red Delicious apple from which to choose.

Take away the "names" and we have an apple, another apple, and finally an apple from which to choose.

Newsflash CanuckChuck- until the primaries are over, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are opponents! Best to stick to making astute observations on Canadian politics. I do love the acerbic wit though- keep pushin' that!

it's amusing to see people getting worked into such a lather over hillary's refusal to drop out. from my point of view, all she is doing is damaging herself. if obama can't withstand an attack from the transparently "i will do anything to attain power and not just be a footnote in history" clintons, then he doesn't have what it takes to become president. hey, i'd prefer a nader or kucinich as presdent, but i wouldn't worry about obama being weakened by the clintons. his political skin is tuff enough and he knows he's a player.

So sorry to have missed this article, especially given some of the comments it has generated thus far.

KEM PATRICK's comments (above) are a perfect example of the nostalgia for Clinton (Bill) that HRC's campaign has been banking on. The trouble is, as I tried to suggest elsewhere, it plays far better as political fable than as economic-political analysis. In the mind of KEM, clearly Bill CLinton is responsible for (i.e. the cause of) the 90s boom. Try passing such claims by just about any economist (of any ideological stripe whatsoever) and see where it gets you.

The there's sLiMsHaDy, who makes a good if somewhat facile point about the lack of substantial difference between the major party candidates (despite assurances from the party bosses that huge differences separate them). All this is in the service of what I would call a systemic critique (although not a very compelling or serious one). But then sLiM says something snide to CanuckChuck just to reinforce the Siddhartha trip he's on...cuz, in case you didn't know folks, he sees it and you do not.

sLiM will make both these points (1. there's no substantive difference between the candidates; 2. I am an enlightened one, the rest of you are sheeple) tirelessly throughout this thread, and the second (because it is what is really dear to him) will eventually eclipse whatever value (however obvious) lies in the first point.

In the meantime both will have missed the important point that a fair number of voters in this country are under the sway of an unreflective reverence for the Clintons.

Yup, DD and KEM, right on schedule, hiding the fact that neither Obama or Clinton are electable.

I see Kathy, we're better off now with Bush than we were when Clinton was the prez huh?

If Obama is our choice over McCain, McCain will replace Bush, anyone think that will be better too?

If Obama is the choice, I'll send him a nice check and fully support and vote for him. I don't believe he'll win though. The demos in Michigan and Florida will stay home on election day and McCain will be our new Bush. ___ Anyone wanna bet?

What did I post that was a fable ~ERIC JD?
maybe you could tell me?

I didn't post that Clinton was our best president, for he sure as hell wasn't. Every president leaves some messes, the next one tries to clean them up, or should. Bush didn't and neither will McCain.

curmudgeon,

I'm not HIDING the electability problems of both Clinton and Obama if they either one have little enough sense to run alone. I'm broadcasting them. But this ain't American Idol. If they screw up and lose, it's OUR policy provisions that are being gambled at the table. Somebody ought to say so, so I'm saying so. What are you doing?

Want Obama? ___ He just endorsed Betrayus as Commander of the forces in the Mid-East region. Last Tuesday night in his consolation speech in Indiana, he said we need "nuclear energy" for clean energy. He cancelled the next two debates with Hillary, what's he have to fear there? That's smart politics? ___For the short run perhaps.___ Not smart for the general though.

I'm not a Hillary lover and a Obama hater. Far from it. I just don't want to see McCain as our next president. Which one can and will beat Mccain is the argument for me.

We grow tired of the pompous Eric-JD who for some reason thinks that he is assigned the title of Head Critic for CommonDreams Commentors.

Don't fret over it too much, KEM. As is SO often the case, Eric J-D didn't say "anything".

"In the meantime both will have missed the important point that a fair number of voters in this country are under the sway of an unreflective reverence for the Clintons."

There you go again- I haven't missed out on that point at all. How bout this: an equal if not larger faction is under the sway of an unsubstantiated and highly unlikely siren song for "change".

Next, RE: snide remark to CanuckChuck, "Siddhartha trip" etc. ad nauseum. My remark regarding primary opponents is true. It's not some big revelation that I experienced, it is just the definition of primary political opponents. YOU are on some kind of trip "buddy" and should stick to adding what YOU might have to contribute to the discussion, and do try and be a bit more "facile" in your attempts, because your "high and mighty-ism" ain't gettn it.

Most of you here seem to beating a dead horse with the "electability" problem! Once this woman is stopped from defeating the Democrats, the people that Obama will surround himself with will be a great team to implement change. Even Rev. Wright proved himself to be light years ahead of the press that were riding both he and Obama down.

You will begin to see a stronger Obama as the time goes on and you will see two victories shortly that will unleash many delegates to the Obama camp. The leadership of the Democrats understands fully the unsuitable and insatiable power-grab going on by the Clinton's, at any cost even if it be the election! Truly they are showing who they are as time unfolds.

Obama was clever this time in avoiding being blindsided by the proposed Hillary debate. Now it is necessary that he get a really good economic team of advisers moving on an American economic plan to attempt to right the economy! The effort spent on that effort would serve him in much greater stead than anything else he could do!

Kelmer, It was said that pot smoking and hard drug shooting Bush was a good choice. Look what we got from him and self appointed Dickieboy. Twwo toe tapping corrupt neo-con nazi killers and thiefs, liars and naysayers.Put old Rush the big mouth in there and let him eat them up.

Siddhartha spake thusly:

There you go again- I haven't missed out on that point at all. How bout this: an equal if not larger faction is under the sway of an unsubstantiated and highly unlikely siren song for "change".

Holy toledo, Batman! This is just the kind of enlightenment the sheeple (your word) here at CD need. If you had not pointed this out, I don't think a single one of the poor benighted souls here would have cottoned on to that point.

Can we all stop posting for a minute to express our gratitude to Sid...er sLiM for coming down from the mountain for a moment and gracing us with this holy nugget?!?

Here's a challenge for you sLiM. Try assuming that perhaps some of the people who post here might actually grasp both of your profound points. Consider that you aren't alone in recognizing the horrific nature of the present system. What are you really contributing to any of the discussions here?

KEM: as for what is a fable, it's the suggestion that Clinton somehow had something to do with the cheap price of gas in the 90s or the suggestion (nowhere stated but everywhere implied) that the economic boom of the 90s is somehow traceable to his policies.

I didn't write Clinton had anything to do with anything~ERIC~. Read what I posted. I just wrote how bad it was when he was the president. Gas wasn't cheap then, the truckers went on a three day strike, remember? It was horrible, was just reminding everyone of how horrible bad it was then.

Do wish this artilce had been the curse of Bush though, which would make a lot more sense to silly old me.

Oh Grate Conceited One who calls himself Eric:

You are TRULY a moron if you think that I invented the word "sheeple". Actually, you vituperous son of a bitch, I know that there are people- plenty of them, who not only see what I am seeing, but saw it before I did and can credit them with changing my mind set. Here's a real challenge for YOU- when are you going to offer anything of value to the discussion besides your sarcastic, bombastic bullshit?

Elitist ASSHOLES like you are what keeps more people from paying attention to the subjects at hand here.

You have ~ERIC~ pegged ~Slim Hadry~.

Don't know what ya mean by that KEM, but I do believe that I will limit myself to just the articles from now on. They seem yto have become the only informative part of the site. Sad.

Obama is being attacked by the right because he is a serious threat to their hold on power. They know Clinton is a much weaker candidate against McCain, and so they will support firstly the dragging out of the democratic infighting, and second, the candidacy of Clinton. Let us not forget the deep animosity of the 'right-wingers' towards the Clintons, which will hurt her in a run-up with McCain. Also, Obama has been reticent to dig up the dirt on Clinton, though there is plenty there that the republicans will not hesitate to use against her come November. Clinton needs to bow out of the race as quickly as possible, but her ambition is not the strength of the democratic party, but her and her husband's deep desire to re-enter the White House -- a desire which trumps all other considerations and fuels their reckless ambition and overreach.

Hmmm. Nope, I do get alot from other people's comments. KEM- you turned me on to the methane gas problem. A single comment reagarding why the government should NOT have the right to put citizens to death changed my view on the Death Penalty. Kathyodat inspired me to look at the Clinton years (past tense) and the present Clinton years in a new light- and it aint flattering! CanuckChuck is amusing and insightful with his observations from the North. I enjoy Hoa Binh (1492)'s succinct remarks ~ and I want to know what "Hoa Bhin" means! There are a WHOLE lot of people that care and express themselves thoughtfully and artfully and they help me to get through this unfolding debacle.

I am looking more and more at the "3rd Party" people because I think it is past time to move outside of the duopoly. IF (and I am no longer sure that there is a way within the "system"), we can get the two-sided bad penny out of power maybe something better can be created.

That will literally take a "village"- and we won't need any high and mighty critic reviewing ideas like (s)he is some kind of professor grading papers.

in the words of rodney king: "can't we all just get along?"
or at least make an effort to?
slim...when i saw your first "apple" post i just read it and went on. when i read eric's post he said what i felt about it on an unconscious level...your post came off as telling us common dreamers that we were being silly in trying to draw distinctions between the 3 candidates. i thought it somewhat high-handed and didn't think it added anything to the discussion either, but i also didn't think it worth taking you on for.
about eric's "style": he's admitted before that he has a lotta snark in himself. and when it gets excessive, i'm fine with you fighting back. but most of the time i find his thought pretty much spot on. hey, he keeps us on our toes and for that, i'm willing to allow him his snark excess. and, maybe, he's just trying to add a little humor to our world. and don't we need it..

Hillary Clinton is a clinical narcissistic personality disorder, a proven habitual liar, a shill for anyone who will write her big checks and a candidate who slaps the working class on the back while slipping in her sharp dagger. This Agrippina, this Margaret Thatcher is only out for herself. I do hope Obama chooses a woman running mate such as Barbara Boxer and would like to see more women in public office, but not arrogant, vicious hypocrites like Hillary.

zgoobadooba-

You know how express yourself rather well. You are right that the "apple" post was something that could be read and moved on from. Its only point was to express my own frustration with the ongoing discussion about who is the better democrat.

I will also bear your words regarding excessive snarkiness in mind and disregard them. And, if I ever read any worthwhile statements from that individual, I will take them in. I am not into hating, I just don't respond well to condescension. Thanks.

I wasn't criticizng you at all ~SLIMsHADY~. I was agreeing with you about what you said about ERIC. "Pegged" means you have him figured out and I agreed that you had.

I also find it sad that if a Joe thinks Hillary is the better choice and a DON thinks Obama is, that there is no reason for anger and hate to enter the debate. This site has become nearly ruined over the issue. I'm thouroughly disgusted with it all and see where many old time bloggers don't blog here anymore.

sLiM,

I don't want this to get derailed by a back and forth between the two (or three of us, counting KEM) but I have to say it is extraordinarily rich to hear you charging me with being "high and mighty" when you repeatedly refer to the sheeple (saying those are your words doesn't mean I think you "invented the word"), or pose as some kind of enlightened being (I see this, you do not" if you recall).

Nevertheless, it is nice to see you complimenting your fellow CD posters for their thoughtfulness (me excepted, of course).

As for your comments about the duopoly though, they are spot on (there's a compliment for you, whether you want it or not). The present problem with voting third party however (at least in my view), is that only a serious overestimation of the extent of progressive/leftist sentiment and/or the extent of disaffection among the electorate for the present political system could lead someone to conclude that a third party progressive had a chance in the general election.

So the arguments for progressives and leftists to go third party (in November) then have to be made on other grounds (i.e. not based on fantasies of a third party victory in '08) and with real clarity about the full range of possible consequences. These include the possibility of alienating people currently identified with the major political parties as much as persuading them to begin the work of building a progressive movement outside the duopoly.

You are also quite right that this will take considerable numbers of people, energy and time. Given this fact, I think it is an open question as to what progressives or leftists should do come November. Voting third party is certainly one option, but given that none of us can foresee what the consequences of doing that will bring, I'm not sure it is the wisest course of action.

Looking back at that piece by Chris Hedges I think you can see the predicament. Hedges appears utterly convinced that people on the left should vote third party progressive. He says so clearly in his second paragraph.

And yet several things about Hedges stance (however sympathetic one might be [and I am] with his frustration) strike me as strange. ON the one hand he seems firmly attached to the very party he says progressives and leftists ought to abandon--he says that left has to walk away until the Democrats "feel enough heat to adopt our agenda." That's still looking to the DP for solutions: the solution here being for the DP to adopt a progressive agenda and thereby transform itself.

Then there's the suggestion that doing this is likely to be the only effective way to bring about the party's self-transformation. But that's a pretty unexamined assumption. It could just as likely produce lasting bitterness, resentment and alienation of people currently in the DP toward anything like a progressive agenda.

Does that mean that progressives shouldn't do this (i.e. walk away from the DP)? Absolutely not, but we've got to consider the full range of possible consequences before committing ourselves to a path of action, wouldn't you agree?

Hedges goes on (rightly) to urge progressives to begin the work of building a progressive/left movement for social and political change, but his earlier remarks about voting sit oddly with that call. Frankly, I'm one of those folks who don't think that durable movements for social and political change are built through particular voting behavior in an election year. I'm not sure Hedges believes this either, but it's a bit hard to tell at times.

So I see the movement building issue as separate from the impending election and voting issue. Unfortunately, they often get conflated in the conversations that occur during a presidential election. People are understandably frustrated and want change and they fixate on the election as the vehicle to bring about change. But it won't happen without a movement already in place to give it durable expression. And a movement is what we lack.

That's quite a bit longer response than I intended, and it doesn't even touch on the substance of the present article. Still, I hope it gives you some better sense of where I am coming from.

It is just how the rethugs (Rove) want it to be. :( I'm fine about it now- thanks, KEM.

zgoobadooba,

I missed your post while I was typing.

You're right (and sLiM is too) to call me on the excessive snark. I'll try to listen to the better angels of my/our nature in the future when I post.

Like sLiM, I'm frustrated with the current situation too. I think that's part of the tragedy of the present: the country is in a right effing mess, none of the major party candidates seems committed to anything close to the kind of change of direction the country really needs, and yet here I am snarking at sLiM.

Pathetic.

Eric-

Compliments are not necessary- but thank you for clarifying your position- I agree with it entirely.

I wholeheartedly agree that the overall solution lies outside of this election cycle. We must rededicate efforts to building a new, progressive alternative to the R/D paradigm starting... well, immediately!

In the mean time, with the election at hand, I just hope to God that it is clear that the R party needs to be thrown out. Of course, it isn't a worry amongst the people here at the CD forum- I suppose that your perception of my writing style is based on the fact that I type like I am speaking to the general population ah ha! OK, now I get where you were coming from!
;)

We are on the same page. I hope that we all are on the same page, and united we can rewrite the neo-con history that bush joked about once upon a time.

hey....we all can get along!!! (well, kinda) ;)

My dog circles a few times before taking a dump.

sLiM,

Thanks for your very generous response.

I sincerely apologize for the snark I aimed at you. It was uncalled for.

On the issue of building a progressive alternative, I think one of the serious challenges liberals, progressives, leftists and so on will face is whether we can build a movement that makes ideological differences between us a source of strength rather than a source of division. It's the old diversity-within-unity/unity-within-diversity trick.

I'm stating the obvious here, but as we know the Repubs are (or at least were) particularly strong at this sort of thing. The Dems, not so much.

So that's a real challenge, especially when confronting powerful entrenched interests like those of the major parties.

Rich Griffin (I think) has also repeatedly made the good point that progressive/left culture is an important component of this work. I share that feeling.

zgoobadooba: thanks for being a vehicle of reconciliation. It's nice to be talking this way. Sorry to have departed from it. :)

(scratching my head over empirePie's dog comment)

Three examples. There are two new articles here about global warming and or climate change and one about nuclear energy. The comments are informative, no one is bashing, even though there are a couple of denyers. It's not only productive, __ it's interesting and fun.