Blogging shows clearly that there is so much misinformation from people who cannot understand the truth if fell from a 100 story building onto their head. I received a rubbish blog telling me that global warming is a hoax. It probably came from the pens at Exxon. So it goes, I am amused at the exchanges between the Hillary supporters who are so disappointed that their choice is viewed as obscene by the American people, they now want McCain to win. If he does they don't have to throw their grade school diplomas on the floor! They tan can prove they have some education one of the major problems of this country.

Sjc_1, a relative of his is a good friend of mine. I have met Obama twice at family gatherings and talked with him casually: once before he entered politics and again about two years ago after he was a US Senator. He is the same guy now as he was before he was elected to anything and he has been involved with progressive causes since he arrived in Chicago.

How do you "know" Obama? How do the more than 15 million people that voted for him "know" him? Have they listened to his speeches and read his positions on issues? Is that KNOWING him? I do not think so. It is being caught up in his words like some sheep led by a piper. Wanting to believe in something or someone so badly that they blindly follow, thinking and saying that they know him. Unless you followed him in his home town for the last 20 years, you do not know him at all.

Kem, they would probably listen politely, they're nice people, and then try to set them straight as they know Obama well, which is more than any of those who have been posting smears against him here can say.

Would they listen? Several million others haven't.

sjc_1 [May 10th, 2008 9:43 am] wrote: "Obama's "clarifying" whatever was done by mostly black voters. In North Carolina and Georgia those were the margins. You can talk about race and say it should not be about race, but then cash in when it is on your side."

Yeah, that 40 percent of the white vote in North Carolina, and the winning majority of the vote in white-bread states like Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Vermont and Iowa must have been what -- confused white folks who really wanted to vote for Hillary?

sjc_1 [May 10th, 2008 9:43 am] wrote: "When I look at this guys connection to big money and some black radicals, I really wonder if people are examining the candidate closely. I think more than half are being sucked in by some form of hypnosis and when they wake up they will wonder what they have done and wish they had never done it."

Lucky for you you didn't have to spell out any specific connections to 'big money' and 'black radicals' -- much better to just stick in the knife without any facts to back it up. Nope, sjc, just like you, it never occurred to any of us to read his positions on the issues, check his record, listen to his speeches, or in any way get to know who the hell we're advocating. We're all just blinded by his rock-star charisma.

Insurgentnon [May 10th, 2008 3:31 am], interesting view of Obama by you or 'Farhat Magami.' It would have been more interesting had it resembled the truth in any way, but I understand slander's like that. I can only conclude, from the unique grammatical structure, that you must be a McCain supporter. let's look at this remarkable post in detail:

'Why liberals are still talking about the media wall by ignoring the fact that Obama, who is neither liberal, nor Black-American...' That's right, Obama's not really black, unless he's trying to get a job, buy a home, hail a cab or get elected in this country, and he was rated as the most liberal US senator by the National Journal -- but I'm sure they're lying to improve his chances of getting elected. Glad you were so perceptive as to notice all of this.

And, after 25 years as a community organizer, Constitutional law instructor, Illinois State Senator, and US Senator, I'm also glad you clued me in that he has 'no experience' yet somehow put together a 'great well-oiled propaganda machine [that] has crushed Hillary Clinton.' How does someone as naive and inexperienced as Obama do that, one might wonder?

And thanks for pointing out that 'Obama denounced and rejected the Black Church' because that somehow escaped everyone's attention, and that 'the same media banished Reverent Wright completely and totally to Gulags and never gave him a chance to respond.' Now we have to find out who that guy was making speeches at the NAACP convention in Detroit and before the National Press Club two weeks ago.

Indeed, 'Why nobody questions Wright sudden disappearance and see this as a conspiracy of corporate media to present Obama the Nominee of Democratic Party!' Yes, and the conspiracy was proceeding according to plan until you revealed it here in the comments thread at CD. Wright is being kept incommunicado at a 'safe house' in Chicago (okay, it's actually his comfortable home on the South Side), and the Big Media has been so careful lately not to ruin the chances of Obama's coronation in November by repeating endlessly McCain's charge that he's endorsed by the terrorist group Hamas and featuring Hillary's campaign spokespeople telling us all the reasons he can't possibly win. Just all part of the conspiracy, right?

'Yet, nobody is allowed to question the real OBAMA, beyond the rosy picture painted by the media!' That's right, and I wish he'd stop using those stand-ins when he goes on Meet the Press and other Big Media shows -- we want to see the REAL Obama with his black radical beret, M-16, and bandolier of ammo forcing Patty Hearst to rob banks for the SLA. Of course he was only 11 at the time, but we know what side he's REALLY been on his entire life -- kill whitey! That's why he threw his white grandmother under the bus years ago, just as the Big Media have been reporting.

Also happy you included this, 'He never experienced racism and what he makes up now has not been supported by anyone in Hawaii where he spent more of his adult life.' Obviously your talents are beyond us average mopes -- you have read Obama's mind throughout his entire life to determine that he has never experienced racism in his youth and apparently interviewed Hawaiians who have the same rare talent. Just a shame, from a factual point of view -- not that facts are important, of course -- that you couldn't include the names of some of these Hawaiians so that we can congratulate them for helping us to see through this not-really-black white-hating fraud.

'He set foot in the United States he used his darker skin to take advantage of affirmative action and to get higher education and get to Harvard!' It's just a good thing he didn't have to earn those scholarships and pay for those college loans because we all know he's as dumb as a post. I bet the Big Media was behind this somehow -- making sure he got into an Ivy League college!

'He was born from atheist mother and an African Muslim father whose marriage certificate was never found and the mother run with Obama and his father's classmate to Indonesia.' Some people would call Obama's father's 'religion' in adulthood 'atheism,' but why be picky? Gee, and now we learn that Obama is really a bastard and that his mother ran off with Dad's friend! You don't write for the National Enquirer, do you?

'He was introduced to Christianity at age of 23 by Reverent Wright yet it seems that he was never officially baptized.' That doddering old fool Wright remembers it differently, but we all know he's crazy. 'It seems that he used Reverent Wright issue to dispel the idea that he was a Muslim and disposed of Reverent Wright, renounce and reject him when the Black Church Ideology was no more necessary for his success.' That's right, twenty years ago, before he was ever elected to anything, he schemed his way into a Christian church just to dispel the notion that he is a Muslim when he one day decided to run for president. Sneaky! Then he 'disposed' of Wright -- no doubt in the trunk of his car -- when he was no longer necessary.

'Ignoring the fact that Obama's was never accepted by anybody in Black community and never thought of himself as Black,' Damn -- those awards he received from black organizations he must have made up himself!

I didn't quite understand the last part of your post, but no matter. Now that we've got the full story on Obama, a radical black man who isn't really black yet hates white people, thinks like Ronald Reagan, and 'disappeared' his Minster -- how could anyone in their right mind vote for him?

Say, I happen to know a few of Obama's relatives and they are completely in the dark on this startling information -- would you be willing to meet them sometime and reveal his REAL sordid past to them?

"Once the campaign is focused on Obama and McCain (without the distraction of the Clintons), the campaign will change."

The poll takers should start asking this question now: "Given the choice of Obama, McCain, or a 3rd candidate, who would you vote for ?"

Insurgentnon, the notion that Obama is closer to Reagan than Clinton or Johnson is absurd. One of the reasons Bill Clinton is so upset is Obama is making a progressive critique of his presidency (people seem to forget what the Clinton administration really was like).

One of the problems is a lot of people don't know the history of Chicago politics and Mayor Harold Washington. Washington was the reason Obama moved to Chicago

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/01/14/obama/

More people need to listen to the hour long documentary This American Life American Life did, Harold

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=84

Kem, the notion that Obama will lose California is equally absurd.

Polls are just snapshots in time. Once the campaign is focused on Obama and McCain (without the distraction of the Clintons), the campaign will change.

And as much as I like Matt, he may not get many more votes running with Nader than he did for Mayor (and remember, Bill Clinton came and campaigned and did robocalls for Newsom).

Obama is far from perfect. He's even said he'll make mistakes which is rare for a politician. And he's said he wants to keep the movement going once he is president, and that movement will have to hold him accountable. I'm not sure a president has talked like this before

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WyNzC9W2C8Q

Obama's "clarifying" whatever was done by mostly black voters. In North Carolina and Georgia those were the margins. You can talk about race and say it should not be about race, but then cash in when it is on your side.

When I look at this guys connection to big money and some black radicals, I really wonder if people are examining the candidate closely. I think more than half are being sucked in by some form of hypnosis and when they wake up they will wonder what they have done and wish they had never done it.

The sad truth is, if Obama is the Demo nominee he will win in SOME of the states where there there are large African American populations. He will lose Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey and New York and probably Michigan. He won't be the president and that's what Hillary is saying and she's absolutely correct.

~INSURGENTNON~ You have painted Obama and the press exactly how they should be painted. Very well said and painted in my opinion.

One series of brush strokes I don't agree with you on, is the mistake you say Bill Clinton made. I didn't ever see what he said was wrong at all, unless I misunderstood his words. And how can they be misunderstood? The mistake on his part was, he probably should have seen what the press would do with his words.

Bill Clinton said exactly what every TV newcaster had been saying since the South Carolina polls showed Obama was leading by a large argin in that state. That is, the press reported, "Obama will get the black vote". That was a fact, he did.

Bill Clinton said, "Jessee Jackson got the black votes in South Carolina and so will Obama get the black votes in South Carolina." ___WOW!! How dare you Billy!!! ___ Because Bill Clinton said that TRUTH AND FACT, he was accused of playing the race card.

When every TV newscaster and political pundent, including ALL of the African American pundents said the same exact thing, and they all still say it, no one thinks anything of it. ___ The race card was actually played by Obama supporters and the press and they dealt that race card to the Clintons hand. And as you so well noted, the press then controlled public opiion ever since and actually determined the outcome of the race between Hillary and Obama.

I do believe the press will continue to control the election and in the general they will support McCain and trash Obama. That's where I think ~RSJ~ here is sadly mistaken, McCain and company will have a field day with Obama and he will lose.

OBAMA: THE INEVITABLE NOMINEE

FARHAT MAGHAMI

Why liberals are still talking about the media wall by ignoring the fact that Obama, who is neither liberal, nor Black-American, with no experience but with a great well-oiled propaganda machine has crushed Hillary Clinton which six months ago was the presumptive Nominee of Democratic Party.
How the same media put Banana peel under Bill Clinton in South Carolina to invent a Black identity for Obama, who never regarded himself as a Black-American( and was regarded by blacks as a white man with Dark skins) regarded by blacks as a Black-American. He even dismissed the Black Church by dismissing Wright. Obama conversion to Christianity at the age of 23 has never been touched by the media. Media has been all along against Clinton and exploited a stupid mistake by Bill Clinton to paint OBAMA as Black exploiting their historical sentimentality to vote en masse for Obama. Even when Obama denounced and rejected the Black Church the same media banished Reverent Wright completely and totally to Gulags and never gave him a chance to respond. Why a firebrand progressive radical is banished and disappeared from Media scene? Why nobody questions Wright sudden disappearance and see this as a conspiracy of corporate media to present Obama the Nominee of Democratic Party! Why Wright has been used as sacrificial lamb in Obama's coronation? Wright was saying nothing different than Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and W. Churchill! Why no one on the left questions his disappearance!

It seems the media is distorting and doctoring the Obama's biography to prepare Americans to accept Obama as an American Black liberal who should be elected as the next president of the US...
Whereas, everything in Obama's history seems to be flowed, doctored and made to crown him as the next president. Yet, nobody is allowed to question the real OBAMA, beyond the rosy picture painted by the media!

When we see that the same media, CNN, CNBC, Newsweek, New York times, and you name it media in the US, who blindly accepted, defended and heralded Bush's Theory of 911, the Attack and occupation of Afghanistan, then lies about Iraq's weapon of mass destruction and finally the marching as imbedded journalist to the unjust war in Iraq, now is supporting the Obama Mania, then everybody should be suspicious.

Who is this darling of Media and why every media in town is beating the Obama's Drum?
Obama's is not a black American, but a hyphenated Kenyan American, who like all other new immigrant s do not share anything with the Black-Americans whom, according to his Grandmother were Negros to be afraid of , be suspicious of and avoid them at all cost, because he was half white!. Despite, the rewriting of Obama's biography, neither he was ever treated like neither the Black-Americans, nor he ever perceived of himself as a black-American. He never experienced racism and what he makes up now has not been supported by anyone in Hawaii where he spent more of his adult life.

He set foot in the United States he used his darker skin to take advantage of affirmative action and to get higher education and get to Harvard!
He was born from atheist mother and an African Muslim father whose marriage certificate was never found and the mother run with Obama and his father's classmate to Indonesia.
He was introduced to Christianity at age of 23 by Reverent Wright yet it seems that he was never officially baptized. It seems that he used Reverent Wright issue to dispel the idea that he was a Muslim and disposed of Reverent Wright, renounce and reject him when the Black Church Ideology was no more necessary for his success.

ONLY IN AMERICA

Obama's success story can only happen in America. It proves the basic goodness, simplicity, philanthropy, abundance of opportunity, acceptability and abundance of opportunity for any immigrant to succeed in America. Americans are very nice people who would accept any story and believe any snake oil salesman who preach and promise them hope and new beginning. Everybody can progress and succeed in America except real Black Americans who are condemned to suffer and be ignored in the inner cities or be victim of racism like what happened in Hurricane Katrina! 35 years after civil rights Black Americans are still at the bottom of this society and being used by their corrupt leaders at every occasion and this time are voting for Obama as if he is one of their own.

Ignoring the fact that Obama's was never accepted by anybody in Black community and never thought of himself as Black, before the Campaign and its Propagandists used the stupid mistake of Bill Clinton who compared him to Jessie Jackson. It was Bill Clinton who made blacks move en mass to Obama in South Carolina.

Masses of Black Americans would not get any benefit from Obama as his policies are closer to Reagan than Bill Clinton or Johnson. In every respect he is closer to conservative side and on the right of Clinton's. The only beneficiary of Obama's
Nomination would be the changing image of America for the Global corporations and those who want to establish African Command to secure the resources of Africa for American Multinationals, which hopefully would bring a more favorable image of the US after disastrous policies of Bush administration.

Okay

KEM PATRICK [May 9th, 2008 4:59 pm] wrote: "~RSJ~ you don't believe the Repugs will raise the issue of Obama's prior connnections? ___ Dream on.___ They don't have to prove anything, all they have to do is accuse and leave Obama stuttering out replys. They're gonna have a field day with him. And why do you often rightfully berate the press for being a sad case, but when they do something that you find to be of value, you use their writings to back up your opinions. Can't have it both ways."

Kem, it doesn't matter who the Dem opponent is, the GOP is going to try and bury them with that kind of slander and BS, but I don't think Obama is going to be 'stuttering out replies.' I saw him running for the State Senate and the nomination for the US Senate and he didn't lose his cool under fierce attack. In the debates, he didn't lose it with Hillary, either. If the GOP doesn't have to prove anything, then what difference does it make? He'll just have to show it's not true, and I trust he can do that. Besides, you are assuming that what has worked in the past for the GOP will work again. Don't be too sure -- in recent special elections, including one in Illinois where I live, the Dem candidates were hit with the standard 'unpatriotic, tax-and-spend, soft on crime and terrorists liberal' smear package and they won anyway, in Republican districts. I just don't think it's going to work this time around -- people are too desperate and the economy is too awful and the voters are looking for a change from the Republican disasters of the last eight years. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by having it both ways with the Big Media, but I use BM sources when they check out with other sources and, as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Kem, I still say the customers would demand it be taken down, even if labeled 'The Constitution of the United States of America.' Some would think it was some weird foreign (probably surrender-monkey French) document and others would be uncomfortable it wasn't being enforced. Haven't you heard -- it's 'quaint' and you can't fight terra-ists with a piece of paper -- that takes Jack Bauer! Besides, how long before the citizens smear mustard or ketchup across the parts they don't like and write in their changes? No Establishment of Religion will become No Establishment of Religion 'Except God's Own Real Faith!' Added to the Freedom of Speech Will Not Be Abridged will be 'Unless It's Stuff We Don't Want to Hear!' The Right to Due Process would be amended to read 'Except for Enemy Combatants and Other America-Haters the Republican President Don't Like!'

We may need Nader ~NANNIE~, in fact we do, but don't put all of your loot on a bet that he wins. In fact, don't bet anything.

~RSJ~ you don't believe the Repugs will raise the issue of Obama's prior connnections? ___ Dream on.___ They don't have to prove anything, all they have to do is accuse and leave Obama stuttering out replys. They're gonna have a field day with him. And why do you often rightfully berate the press for being a sad case, but when they do something that you find to be of value, you use their writings to back up your opinions. Can't have it both ways.

As to the Constitution, It will be headlined "The Constitution", unlike the poll taken where the people didn't have a clue of what was being quoted. That's why I'd have it well posted and mailed to everyone for studying.

Freedom of speech ...I can say what I feel personally about the situation. SO CAN YOU...

Ralph Nader as President is IMHO what this country needs.

Vote Nader 2008....

.

I'll say it again…

We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now

http://www.votenader.org/index.html

.

Jerry D. Rose [May 7th, 2008 1:31 pm] wrote: "Another pass has been issued to Obama in allowing him to make his half-truth claims that his is a populist campaign that takes no money from lobbyists, a claim laid bare by Pam Martens, but published only in Black Agenda Report and Counter Punch, two online media that have been honorable exceptions to the "havening" of Obama by the others. Again, to get any extended discussion of the ominous scandal clouds growing around the investigation of Obama's connections to public housing rip-offs in Illinois, one would have to go to Evelyn Pringle's articles in Counter Currents, another website that, along with Dissident Voice, has stayed outside the haven thrown over Barack Obama."

Jerry and I have been having a running debate about Pam Martens' unproven charges -- aside from the fact that Martens belongs to an organization that has endorsed Hillary Clinton, rather than Obama's connection to lobbyists being 'laid bare' by Pam, it was simply inferred, and she ends up admiring Obama and admitting she can't connect him to any corrupt schemes. To be fully informed on both sides of this argument, I suggest you read the thread over at Bud McClure's Atonement article, as well as Dr. McClure's piece: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/04/8702/

As far as Jerry's charges of 'ominous scandal clouds growing' he should be more specific. Both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, the town's two major newspapers, have been investigating Obama since he ran for the State Senate and have found nothing, as well as dispelling any connection between Obama and Tony Rezko's influence peddling. (The court charges had to do with Rezko's work for Gov. Rod Blagojevich, not Obama.) 'Scandal clouds' may 'grow' because a political opponent makes an accusation, but that is not proof. Before you smear someone's reputation, don't you think you should have some evidence beyond this sort of spurious innuendo?

Let me show you how easy this is, Jerry: I accuse you, by dint of your opposition to Obama, of being an agent of the Republican Party. Is that true? I don't know; I simply did it by inference, since you are opposing the likely Democratic Party nominee. Of course, I can't prove that claim but, since Republicans are against Obama, and you are against Obama, then you must be a Republican.

Specious logic, but this is basically what Pam Martens and other Obama critics have been doing to a great extent; if Obama's campaign gets contributions from employees of Wall Street firms -- even though the total amount is a small percentage, about $2 million, of the $240 million he has collected -- it must follow that he is in the back pocket of those Wall Street firms, although you, and Pam Martens, can provide not a shred of evidence that he's done anything to help them.

Jerry D. Rose [May 7th, 2008 4:13 pm] wrote: "Frank says rural people in Kansas vote against gays and abortion and get a Republican party that gives them corporate giveaway bankrupty "reform" acts or "Class Action Fairness" (limits suing the people that hurt you) Acts, both of which Obama voted for just like his Republican buddies. Blacks vote for one of "their own" and get a politician who really cares more about his Wall Street handlers and his AIPAC kiss-ups than he does black people."

Jerry, you're dead wrong: Obama voted AGAINST the GOP's 2005 Bankruptcy Bill (Senate Bill S-256), and tried to amend the worse parts of the Class Action Fairness Act to remove those portions unfair to consumers, as I posted over at the Atonement article. If you can prove that Obama 'really cares more' about Wall Street and AIPAC than black people, I suggest you do so or apologize for the slander. You are long on talk and short on fact. BTW, not that you care about accuracy, but it was actually 92 percent of the black vote in North Carolina that went to Obama.

Jerry, did you ever stop to think that the reason that many progressive sites do not cover this stuff is because, as Cappadonna3030 has said, there is no 'there' there? Are you sure the monkey here is not yourself?

John Freeman [May 7th, 2008 1:35 pm], you're right, but it's not us 'Boomers' -- it's the damn self-absorbed, means-to-an-end, Masters of the Universe Yuppies who are causing all the problems. A toast to your service, John -- that was a terrible time to wear the uniform.

Realitychecker [May 7th, 2008 2:02 pm], good points and, although I'm a 'Boomer,' I agree. (Please read my above comment differentiating Boomers from Yuppies.) We also have to keep the pressure on Obama to fulfill his promises, if he's elected.

Beekeeper [May 7th, 2008 3:03 pm] that's completely inaccurate -- Obama didn't 'readily' trash his pastor; in fact, he didn't dump him in his first speech on the matter in Philadelphia as every political advisor in the world would have told him to do. It was only with regret that he severed ties with him recently -- I think Obama was angry that Wright, apparently blinded by his own chance at fame, came out swinging at a time when the controversy was dying down. It's also nonsense to say he's 'ashamed' of being black any more than he's 'ashamed' of being white. He's a man who understands both worlds, which is one reason why he'd be a good president -- he'd be the first to have that kind of understanding.

KEM PATRICK [May 7th, 2008 3:37 pm] wrote: "A copy of our Constitution would be hanging on the walls of every fast food outlet, coffee shop and Wal-Mart rest room in the country."

Good idea, Kem, but the diners and shoppers would probably demand that that 'atheistic, commie document' be taken down. You may have heard what happened when a survey was taken at a mall some years ago. The pollster read a section of the Constitution, without identifying the source, and asked the happy consumers if they agreed. Something like 65 to 70 percent didn't agree with the Constitution on such things as separation of church and state, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to due process. Comforting, isn't it?

Living in King Kem's America wouldn't be a bad thing at all; even though I sometimes disagree with Our New Monarch -- all hail the new Brian Boru!

Rich Griffin [May 7th, 2008 3:37 pm] wrote: "Obama supporters are simply wrong. Prove your point by pointing to real policies, to leadership as a U.S. senator - it's sad and exasperating!"

Why don't you go to his website, barackobama.com, and read his policies and accomplishments instead of spewing ignorance. Here's what Elizabeth Drew said:

"Obama has been accused of being all flash, and of not having done much in the Senate. His record in the three and a half years he has been there suggests someone serious about the job: he worked on a nuclear nonproliferation bill that passed and backed a number of policy changes to help veterans, including more medical care for those with post-traumatic stress disorder, assistance for homeless veterans, and the extension of tax credits for military families. He pushed through the Senate a major bill on ethics reform; and introduced legislation in January 2007 to stop, or if that failed, limit funds for the surge. He also worked with the conservative Republican Tom Coburn in a successful effort to get Congress to impose transparency on government expenditures so that anyone can look them up. The criticism that he hasn't done more also overlooks the fact that during his first two years in the Senate, he was ninety-ninth in seniority and in the minority party."
-- Elizabeth Drew, "Molehill Politics," The New York Review of Books, March 30, 2008.

ACH [May 7th, 2008 5:57 pm], yes, that's a partial, and I mean that in both senses of the word, review of McCain's record as a POW, but are you aware that he told 60 Minutes in the 1990s that he regretted breaking under torture and being used by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes? Wikipedia is a valuable source, but it seems like this entry was put up by the McCain campaign and needs some fact-checking.

Lillulu [May 7th, 2008 9:34 pm], even the Washington Post is saying it's all over but the shouting. Hillary is, in the word used by Murdoch's New York tabloid, 'toast.' I think, at this point, Hillary is just a junkie addicted to campaigning, but her campaign's broke, so I don't think she can keep it up very long. It's a good possibility she'll drop out before the Oregon primary.

Formernadervoter [May 7th, 2008 9:58 pm] Obama is not a member of the DLC. Hillary is, Obama is not.

Nannie [May 7th, 2008 11:42 pm], we didn't get Nader in 2000 (and I voted for him); we didn't get Nader in 2004; and we aren't going to get Nader in 2008, so come out of your trance.

Wher yu learn to talk like dat? You ain no fool.

Jerry D Rose;

Call it how you like, I will bow out of this conversation. I just find it hard to see how "humble" your opinion is, as it seems you feel you know better than over 80% of the African Americans with regards to Obama. Kind of like; "Well thank you sir, yes thank you kindly fo heppin all of us Black folk think straight. Lord I don't know where us Black folk would be without the white man heppin us to think. Yes sir, thank you sir."

Sooo well spoken by our very own "wise" man ~Bojingles~ .

"Nine tenths of wisdom is being wise in time".
~Theadore Roosevelt~.

yes.. the media is working for their robber baron owners and their interests....they all should be locked up after being tarred and feathered....

their plan is to keep americans in the worst slavery system as possible to help enrich their robber baron owners.. how in the world did americans get so brainwashed to allow the news to be OWNED by the rich robber barons???

one can find out where the most wise people are by checking the counties and their voting..... if one is checking to find the most WISE white people.... then you will a low vote for hillary and the clintons.. cause they have been vetted and PROVEN as the most corrupt politicians in americn history and one ALWAYS takes a NON vetted person over a proven crook.. so any wise person would take obama over hillary..

when one has been vetted and PROVEN as corrupt to the core like the clintons... that should be an automatic no vote for them against ANY other candidate that has NOT been vetted.. cause with this one has a chance with the proven one.. there is NO chance to avoid in electing a crook !!

so this is why all the data shows the more educated going for obama over clinton.....and one then can find the wisest people in the country from this..... where are they?? they are more in wisc and minn and montana and idaho.. and washington and oregon.. these places will attract more and more wise people who flees the dumb people who make so many mistakes... people like the dishonest and immoral person like kem patrick and bob k.... wise people knows who they are and what harm they do... and they will leave these type people areas...

so a separation is now taking place.. the wise will flock to the wise and what will be left will be the crooks and the dumb in the same areas.. and so much misery !!

I think the media should be censured and the FCC should rule that no media has the right to exclude any politician who is running for office as happened recently with the ABC debate. The only exclusion should apply to a candidate not sitting in public office. The license of ABC would be lifted if the rules were changed but the congress, with the exception of a few pushes for more media conglomeration supported by special interests. I hope that someone picks up on this thought. We have seen an obsession by FOX and CNN, particularly in the form of Wolf Blitzer, constantly referring to the Rev. Wright controversy.

He is quick to use every possible negative he can against Obama from the Flag Pin to anything else he could get his mouth around. His bias for Clinton has been clear and inappropriate for CNN to call itself a "fair and balanced" news network. I quote Mr. Nichols:
" The media pretense of being a fly on the wall has often been preposterous. In the real world of politics — where power brokers and manipulators proceed with the cynical axiom that perception is reality — the fly on the wall is the wall. The political press corps is not observing reality as much as redefining it while obstructing outlooks and constraining public perceptions."

As usual, few are able to see the stampede of the public sheep. I support the change that Obama represents! He is intelligent and wants America once again to be looked upon as a great nation that it could be and once was. The present "lack of experience" cry of Clinton is preposterous. Could anyone have been near the White house as long as Bush and done as badly for the USA? There is experience! However, saying that is the discovery of a job approval rating at about 28% by the American people. No one could have been as bad as the Bush team! There is experience!

A flight from entrenched American politics is necessary . . .it has ruined this country and made greed the single value of importance. The young people once again embrace hope as a result of the Obama campaign. The Hillary political group and entrenched politics have virtually destroyed America with its policies and exclusive power clubs. She has believed this form government is America. She has recently morphed to the Obama populist message while at the beginning showing her Madeline Albright bomb the children image.
Can anyone truly think that change is unnecessary? I guess so since all the politicos have adopted his message including McCain? The mistakes that Obama may make as president cannot be greater than those of the past seven years. It is also necessary to give him a democratic congress to make certain that the programs that Americans want can be enacted.

Mr. Gore Vidal, has pointedly criticized mainstream media as one of the major problems and what is wrong with the USA. The corporate media conglomerates control the message and that message is perversely distorted and panders to its advertising portfolio!

Wolf Blitzer one of the glaring examples of this criticism shows clearly those distorted ideas in his reporting, which is nothing more than partially factual opinion. He is a person who has no right to shape public opinion and is far from being the "fly on the wall" he espouses to be. We must remember flies morph from maggots. He displays ignorance as a virtue for the entire world to see, an example of what is considered, by many in Americans to be news reporting. If billed as a CNN commentator, at least the public would not be hoodwinked to believe his reporting to be the truth or his lack of concern for accuracy, rectitude and fairness to be news rather than opinion.

The people of the USA have been so ill informed as to what a change would really do and mean to this country and the change in leadership that is necessary, they have forgotten that no one could be worse than George Bush. . . No one; not even a dogcatcher, at least the dog catcher has compassion for animals!

The problems with the US future leaders, Obama or McCain, as president, is the problem once again the public kept ignorant of the issues by the media. In the heat of elections the media panders to voter ignorance. The emphasis, as we see nightly are candidates miscues as a result of the media sensationalism, the wrong problem and the wrong message at this crucial time. The emphasis should be on having the politicians address a credible platform of ideas based on an American and global interaction and world problems.

There is not enough time left for civilization to focus on rubbish. The energy and environmental issues for example or food and health care are the problems the media should be focusing upon. But to use the Rev, Wright issue for one week, to try and hurt the candidacy of Obama is a travesty. The issues most pressing are once again avoided, those really important issues before the congress, like the environment, continued funding of Iraq energy issues, education, health care and so many others not dealt with, all impacting upon the economy, is outrageous!

The issue of this election will impact on the environment, economy and the future of the USA as no others. Yet, if more than 50% of eligible voters cast their votes it will be a miracle because of regressive US election laws and media obfuscation. It is compulsory for every one to vote in Australia it should be so here as well. Few of the candidates are really talking about the major points, the environment in association with the economy or health care and elections reform to name some as a result of all the nonsense punditry for so many hours.
The world looks at America and its "star struck reality" in wonder.

Still the political discussion rests on the complete lack of talking points in isolation, such as Clinton's health package, or the nonsense gasoline tax rebate and it's cost, rather than what is really at stake with energy issues, which is human survival. The candidates wanting to be president rarely talk about the complete interrelated package of all these issues combined, as Obama alludes to and wants to enjoin. When he asks for this to occur it land on deaf ears because the media and special interests do not want this to occur.

The media reduces the public debate to its most simplistic level with pundits arguing about one inconsequential issue or another rather than the truly important issues of our time. The American people are kept from hearing about the entire package of issues which a true leader must address and deal with for the very survival of America in the world within a global economy are at stake.

The media keeps the public dumbed down for obvious reasons they represent the money people. As a result the public becomes unable to talk about moving radically toward change to deal with climate change, energy issues and the global economy not only American economy. All the other issues like people losing their homes as a result of Wall Street manipulation are tied to these fundamental problems. These is the first and major issue which affects all other issues and is completely related to the economic changes which must take place.

The media board rooms instruct their so-called journalists (news/opinion readers) to stay clear of those subjects that would attack advertising, consumption, and result in the decline of their hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. All environmental problems are in one way or another associated with the Western world's consumption based lifestyle led by the USA. These issues are affected by consumer advertising much of it coming from the millions spent on irrelevant product and campaign advertising. The media should be dealing with true American and global issues in this campaign affecting the very basis of the so-called American Dream, fast becoming the global nightmare.

Lets just annoint him as King for a year NANNIE.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Nader Issues:
Adopt single payer national health insurance.
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget.
No to nuclear power, solar energy first.
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare.
Open up the Presidential debates .
Adopt a carbon pollution tax .
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East .
Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law.
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax .
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism .
Work to end corporate personhood.

This is definately the year for a third party candidate and that will be Ralph Nader.
The media is doing a blackout so the only attention he is getting is through the blogs and by giving speeches in every state that he is trying to get on their ballot. You know what a grinding road that is.
Visit his election webbsite, give them some encouragement. Donate if you can . You won't see Goldman Sach contributions there.
He will be a fine President.

.

Well ~NANNIE~ I have consistantly stated, "a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain". But I sure am having second thoughts about that.

And the outright lies.

Well, I'm glad to see I've raised some misgivings about the Obama "vulnerability," as short as I may be on the "superdelegates" as the solution to the issue. Probably this "vetting" should have happened much, much earlier in the campaign; the information about the Wall Street and Chicago has been available for months, but few have sought it to address it, maybe because they felt that the "normal" process of selection would "take care" of the Obama-problem.

Nannie, to your post above about Ron Paul's contributions; I had already posted a requested "explanation" on thne Atonement article comments, but that string is about to peter out and you probably didn't see it:
.....
Nannie, interesting observation and question. Explanation? Well, I have trouble navigating Open Secrets when I have a question of who gives what to whom, but I think it's something like this:

1. Ron Paul's "defense corporations" are first of all the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, along with a few defense contractors, and Google, and I presume that these are "bundled" contributions from soldiers, employees or even internet users, that are recorded under these rubrics.

2. The contribution levels are small, compared with the 6-digit level "top" contributors to Obama and Clinton, something like 72,000 I believe as the "top" contributor compared to the over a half million from Goldman Sachs to Obama. I would think that these same contributors who are "tops" for Paul would appear way down their fatter lists.

Bottom line: I think Open Secrets shows that Paul is far more the authentic "populist" fund raiser than Obama claims to be; I don't like the "libertarian" cast of Pauls' domestic policies, but I admire his forthrightness as opposed to the "half truths" that come so often from Obama.

I never heard about the pig being on the ballot ~ERIC~
but we've had a lot of jackasses to vote for or against.

Sure Hillary has skeletens, but her's have already been hashed out and they aren't hidden and many are bogus and most know about those. She has exactly the same amount of rabid supporters as Obama has. The problem is, If Obama is the Demo nominee, a whole brand new list of things about him that HE'S so far hidden from the public, are not hidden at all, but no one has brought them up yet.

The Republicans are frothing at the mouth to bring them out into the open and Obama will be exposed for what he actually is and the honeymoon will be over. It will be sadly known by all, that Obama is just another smooth talking politician and a very decieving one at that. ___ McCain will win.

If Hillary is the nominee, the charges the Repugs will toss at her have already been tossed so often they are practically meaningless. And McCain will be running agaisnt Hillary and Bill Clinton. Bill is still very well liked, in spite of his making oral sex a household word.

If Hillary is the Demo nominee, she will beat the pants off of McCain, but ONLY IF Obama is her VP choice. So that's what the super delegates and Obama have to consider. You asked for an opinon ~ERIC~ and that's mine. We all have opinions, I'm often right however, I must admit with all humbleness and full respect for most others.

Seriously, McCain will beat Obama and Hillary/Obama will trounce McCain. That's the bottom line.

In the U.S. political landscape, being opposed to war doesn't mean being opposed to militarism. So Ron Paul's acceptance of defense corp money doesn't surprise me a bit.

.

I went back and checked on the other candidates to see who was getting from whom and found a interesting thing.
Ron Paul who of course is the " NO WAR " candidate received almost ALL of his top contributions from DEFENSE corporations. Odd…
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008

.

I should add that I don't think it is going to come down to the wire, despite HRC's declaration to stay in until the end. I think you'll see more and more people inside the party rallying around Obama just as David Bonior, John Edward's campaign manager, did today.

HRC will (I believe) ultimately not want to damage her own future presidential aspirations by appearing like George W. Bush, convinced that she alone knows what is good for the country/party and ignoring the growing chorus of voices calling on her to bow out gracefully.

That approach worked disastrously for Ted Kennedy back in 1980, when he pushed his claim to be the party's nomineed right up to the moment of the convention. The lesson that HRC will draw from this is not that Kennedy's tenacity cost the Dems the white house in 1980, but that it effectively ended Kennedy's presidential aspirations forever.

.

Dear Friend:
Here's a safe bet: the two major political parties will nominate Presidential candidates from the corporate wings of their parties.
What will that leave us in this election year?
Corporate control as usual.
If this happens, we have two choices – throw in the towel.
Or fight back.
If we choose to fight back, here's a good option:
Join with a person whose life is one of dedicated service to the public interest.
To help him organize a political campaign in every state against corporate control over our lives.
Luckily, that person – Ralph Nader – is running such a campaign.
But he will need active and informed citizens in every Congressional district in the country.
He will need volunteers.
He will need funds.
He will need dedication.
That's why I've signed on at Nader's campaign web site at www.votenader.org.
Check it out.
And spread the word.
In 2008, it's either sit back and watch the drift.
Or get off the couch and fight back.
Hope you will join me.
Thank you.

.

Let's grant Jerry D. Rose and KEM everything they say about Obama's vulnerabilities, as well as their position that ultimately this is where the whole superdelegate concept shows itself to be a wise feature of the DP's nominating process.

The question remains, what should the superdelegates do and what can they do?

Here's what they can't do (not in terms of authority, but in terms of public perception): they can't say, "both of these candidates (Obama and Clinton) are flawed, so we're nominating some third candidate." That would require way more spine and several more testicles than anyone in the DP has.

So they've got Obama and Clinton to choose between. Who do they choose?

Jerry's made a case for Obama's vulnerabilities (as has KEM), but Jerry suggests that Clinton's got them too. (and I think anyone who's been awake for the past 20 years would be able to produce a list of these without much difficulty)

KEM suggests that she does too, but that she's kept these hidden for some undisclosed reason (I suspect because they actually are hiding in plain sight and have been for 15 years or so).

So we're back to the question of what the superdelegates do to save the DP's chance to take the white house.

Thoughts?*

*Does anyone here remember when the Yippies ran a pig for president?

~JERRY D. ROSE~ you have nailed it perfectly. It isn't that Obama has recieved PAC money, they ALL accept PAC money. The issue for the Republicans will be that Obama has constantly denied it, among other things that are going to be impossible for Obama to answer with any credence. The Repugs will "obliterate" him. Sorry, the devil made me use that word.

In addition as you noted, Obama has a closet full of skeletins and the Republicans will empty the closet on him for all to witness. Hillary has not done that for many reasonable reasons. After all, Obama will likely be the Demo candidate and she knows it and she'll campaign for him because she doesn't want to see McCain win either. But the Republicans will have a field day with Obama.

All these posts about how Hillary should get out now, she's only in there as a spoiler, she's an ego-maniac, you name it: I can't totally disagree but for all that, whether she gets out or not I think the "superdelegates" should absolutely hold their decisions for now if not right up to the convention. My reason, and you Obama adorers won't like this but, like it or not, here's what I think are the "facts, m'am" just the facts. In Obama we have a person who, rightly or wrongly, is incredibly vulnerable to being Spitzer-ized: you know, one day you're the top of the world, the next you are dog meat because someone with an interest in grinding you up is able to come up with some "information" about you that means your immediate downfall.

Obama's "vulnerability?" Not any kind of sexual deviance, homo or hetero, so far as I know, rather it's his business dealings (Nixon's downfall if you remember): both in Chicago and with Wall Street. The Tony Rezko trial in Chicago seems to be proceeding without any Obama "implication" being established in any chargeable way, however "irregular" his relations with TR might be. But DA Patrick Fitzgerald has already sent one Illinois Governor to jail, and who knows whether he would stop at any opportunity to do the same with a Senator?

As for the Wall Street thing, we've argued on this thread about what kind of campaign contributions fuel Obama's campaign, but one thing is "perfectly clear" as RN might say: he was the recipient of $330,000 from UBS, really a toxic name to be found as your third largest contributor. It's the Swiss investment conglomerate which is now tanking as it "writes off" billions in its assets and, just this morning, one of its executives was "briefly detained" in the U.S. on suspicion the company may have been advising clients on U.S. tax evasion (a Swiss financial institution? nah!). Is this an indication that Bush's "Justice" Department is perking up its ears for a prosecution in which Obama just might be involved? I found this morning (yes I'm looking, as investigative reporters---which I'm not---should be looking) an article on a reporter's "picking through" Obama's investment portfolio. In truth the pickings were slim except in terms of a couple of investments in 2005 when there was a "coincidence" of Obama's small (and unprofitable) investments in telecommunications companies that just happened to be seeking and getting some large "homeland security" grants from Congress (no evidence that Obama was directly involved in the funding decisions.) Interesting here was the identity of the investment firm which recommended these bad investments to him: UBS, which specialized in bad advice and is currently a respondent in investor law suits for that very reason.

Scoffers will say that these are small potato things that could be "picked out" of anybody's past, and of course they'll say that Hillary is so very much worse. But we're not talking here (please!) about Hillary's vulnerabilities but Barack's.

My point is not to raise accusations against Obama but simply to point out that there is enough smoke in his background to provide the possibility for some Spitzer-ing fire as the Republican noise machine cuts loose on him when he's a candidate. So here's where the super-delegates come in. They have been much maligned as un-democratic but their non-commitment may be the last safety net for dealing with suddenly discredited candidates. I wouldn't want to see a repeat of the Tom Eagleton affair in which McGovern (wasn't it?) had to replace his vice-presidential nominee after he was already announced and then it was revealed that Eagleton had once (gasp!) been treated for mental problems, and McGovern had to say weakly, "well I asked him if he had any skeletons in his closet") one incident (among many other factors) that contributed to the McGovern ticket's humiliating defeat. As Pam Marten said in her articles on Obama's Wall Street connections, WS "vetted" him as acceptable for its purposes before it chose to sponsor his presidential bid, and that a party has the same responsibility to "vet" its candidates with the "skeletons in the closet" questions before they put their eggs in the basket of that candidate.

Now I'm not a Democrat (only a former one) and in a sense I don't care how flawed a candidate the party puts forth but in a sense I am concerned and, when push comes to shove and the "lesser evil" of a Democrat or Republican has to be chosen, I won't be making that "choice" in my own vote, but I'd much rather it would be a "viable" Democrat; and that's where the super-delegates might come in as a Mighty Mouse to save the day for the Democrats, the Republic and the world.

TIME ALWAYS TELLS.

In the end, the fault always lies with the overwhelming stupidity of so many Americans who cannot, or refuse, to see through the manipulation of corporate media. The present incarnation of the MSM peddles the world's greatest brand of utter bullshit since the communists and the nazis. The only difference is that it's more "entertaining". So go ahead, "my friends", and have yourself of couple of yoks before they flush us all down the toilet.

~NANNIE~ thank you for posting that very revealing link today at ( 8.23am ). Obama has constantly said he takes NO money from PACS, but he's actually recieved ($131 million ) from PACS as I read it.

Now let us go back to what ~TBALTIC~ posted on ( May 7th at 4.04pm ) He is absolutely correct. Why hasn't Hillary pointed out more of Obama's flaws or mis-statements in that respect? Because when she or Bill Clinton do, they are accused of playing the race card.

If Obama was as good as he sounds or as good as he has written about HIMSELF in his book, he'd be the best president we ever had. ____ Sorry, he's not what he says he is and he didn't put it all in his book. He's not even close to his SELF portrayal. But wow, can he ever deliver a speech, magnificent.

If any take the time to check his votes as a U.S. Senator, they would discover that he's as close to McCain or Lieberman as any could be. And McCain and Lieberman are as close to Bush as any could be. Talk about the Pied Piper, ____ time will tell.

"Clinton cannot win. Period. She can only hope for an anti-democratic coup by Super Delegates that would destroy the Democratic Party."

That's correct, but this isn't new; Clinton lost this race three months ago in the very way you describe, and embarked upon that strategy--to get the superdelegates to pull a George Bush Jr. and throw out the results of the election in order to coronate her. The corporate press has been acting as her enabler, rather than telling the public this. Every single person who has voted for her in that time-frame, without exception, has been, in effect, backing Junior Bush's 2000 post-election coup attempt.

I believe that Obama has had enough obstacles to overcome the Clinton machine that the last thing he needed was to be branded as an ultra liberal, especially when Clinton has positioned herself further and further to the right. I believe Obama will become more and more substantive once he nails the nomination. This election is going to be fun; finally, we'll have a real decision to make instead of choosing with whom we'd rather have a beer with.

I've been impressed by Obama's political savvy, and he's been pretty successful at painting the Clintons as practitioners of the politics of the past. His speech in response to the smearing of Reverend Wright was subtler and smarter than almost any one I've heard on MSM. But, what has he said to make us believe that he will take on the war machine or the parasitic corporatocracy? As one writer said on C-SPAN BOOK TV, "I find his statements remarkably short on substance and meaning".

ISSUES: here is one we never hear about from the Dem's and may comeback to haunt them if not dealt with. Oil - attacking the oil company profits is a loser. What we need to think about is using the remaining crude oil for plastics and stop pretending we don't need it for anything at all. Certainly we can replace it as the most common fuel for vehicles within 3-5 years tops. The efforts of which would ceate more jobs and help the economy. The economy needs jobs not more rhetoric, and tareting companies for making profits is a loser everytime.

Well said, realitychecker! I wonder waht these ideological purists say about the state of public reason within the progressive community.

I have no problem with honest and fair critique of Obama's policy positions. Indeed, I think that there are many legitimate criticisms of Obama to be made by the progressive community.

Nevertheless, I think that realitychecker is right to point out the cynicism and elitism of the progressive-purists who say that a large number of Americans are blinded by the Obama mystique. I don't think it's that simple.
I wonder if this kind of ideological purity isn't symptomatic of late-capitalism. In other words, is the progressive community actually turned off to the real world of the people they want to help that they turn to their private sense of morality into a set of uncompromisable political beliefs?

Nannie, thanks for hanging in there on this with your 8:23 post this morning.

The link you provide is still the best "quickie" way to encapsulate the campaign funding of Obama's "populist" campaign; Martens' work is a lot of icing on that cake.

Looking again at that link, I was struck with a "coincidence" with an item in this morning's news. The 3rd-highest contributor is listed as UBS ag at $363,000 dollars, and I presume this is the international powerhouse brokerage firm UBS Financial. Today's Boston Globe headlines that the AG of Massachusetts has just negotiated a $37 million settlement on behalf of cities and towns and the turnpike authority in the state for having lost money by investing (on UBS advice) in "auctions-securities" which seem to be bundled bad loans from subprime mortgage lending. http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/05/08/broker_to_return_37m_to_towns/
The New York Times reports this morning that, as a generality, class action suits of investors against Wall Street firms are very difficult to prosecute, since Supreme Court decisions keep "raising the bar" on the level of proof required to sustain a claim of damage for wrongful investment advice. The article doesn't mention the effects of the 2005 Class Fairness Act, which was actually an effort to put a cap of class action suits, and which our populist hero, Senator Obama, supported. Even if the Supremes are the major culprit in this, reflect on the oft-stated that we just have to have a Democrat in the White House to appoint the next Justices; but do you reckon that Obama would appoint justices likely to circumvent the agenda of his Wall Street supporters. Or am I being "racist" again, just because so many blacks (and people of all other colors) have lost their homes in the housing "bust" that wasn't a bust at all for the WS profiteers from same?

Opeluboy (May 7: 5:l5 P.M) "If you have trouble agreeing with Solomon on this one, regardless of which candidate you support, you have not been watching TV, reading a newspaper or listening to the radio."

Something must be awry in my reading skills. I don't watch much TV or listen to much radio, but I do read each day(online) about 30 newspapers (well, let's be honest, I scan them) in the U.S. and worldwide, and for some reason I still "don't agree with Solomon on this one" (or did you notice?)

McCain will win the general election for president of the US. Why?

McCain will exploit the racist leanings of Americans by portraying Mr. Obama as a black crack head, a pimp for Wall Street, unpatriotic, etc. etc.

Americans, by and large, are dumb as bricks. But shades of facts makes the best propaganda.

.
Obama's Top Contributors

here is the web page once again:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

It explains far better than I…

.

whatever you say: (May 7 11:43 P.M.)

So now its "racist" for a few humble posters on this site like myself to join those "racist" folks like Glen Ford, Bruce Dixon and Margaret Kimberly at Black Agenda Report in making some comments on what we think is best or worst for black Americans. No, I'm the wrong "demographic" (white "intellectual" older male living in Florida) to be able to have an authentic understanding of those black American needs. But it's perfectly ok for Solomon and for the Purity Police for Obama (PPFO) who patrol this website to "wax poetic" about the "need" for the whole country of this uniter who will take us "beyond" race and gender and regional and even ideological differences. If we're "racists," what term is there for folks who presume to make judgments about what's "right" for people outside their own narrow "demographic?" Could we please get a waiver from the PPFO to exercise our sense of civic responsility to think about the needs of all people in this country--and in the world for that matter? If we're wrong in these judgments, you'll "correct" us, but let us speak at least without being put down as racists or whatever-ists If we can't get this waiver, I'll take off my watch and jewelry a la Marcia Clark and you can take me straight to PPFO jail to join all those folks (mostly black) in the incarcer-Nation that your hero never seems to talk about. (Oops I presumed again to express a judgment sympathetic to black Americans; how racist can you get?)

To Samson and all "closet" McKinneyites out there: it's tough to find a similarly-hearted person on this string and not be able to make contacts without making your overtures to the whole world wide web. I'll put my e-mail here to encourage the beginning of a web of communication that you won't get through the "media": either MSM or the so-called "progressive" press which belongs to Barack Obama. My address is jerrydrose11@yahoo.com. Let's talk, folks, through a Committee of Correspondence, if necessary. With Common Dreams, Nation, etc. likely to shift their partisanship now to bashing Nader and McKinney with Clinton almost gone from the race, these contrarian posts on the next round of their service to Obama, along with whatever independent networks we can cobble together, may be our only hope for any small "voice" in the upcoming decision in November.

I agree realitychecker!

Obama is differant, he gets his contributions and votes from college educated (ie: intellectuals) as well as the poor and middle class.

I'm trusting him to unite our fractured country.

Please don't discount the baby boomers or the little old white ladys, I'm one..

That we are waxing poetic over Obama shows how low the bar is set in our expectations. He is, at least, a possibility. There is an element of unknown. His campaign funding has come largely from Mom & Pops and their kids. Not so bit on the corporate bribery. That smacks of potential. At this point, it's enough. It's all we have, really.

We are getting the signatures and donations to provide for a good solid run.
while all the fussie fussie goes on with O&C the real contender for the office of President, Ralph Nader is getting it all together and will be such a force everybody will welcome his experience, wisdom, honesty and intelligence.

Hail Kem... The best so far...Hail

I don't think it used to be this way in America, this two plus year media fixation on the presidential race. Christ, we have another six more months of this crap and nothing is going to change no matter who gets elected. We'll have a few months reprieve, then we'll start hearing about the 2010 election then the 2012 election shortly thereafter. We're already hearing about Hilary's probable bid in 2012.

Americans buy millions (billions?) of dollars worth of "how to diet" books and get fatter all the time, as if buying a book will make one thin. Similarly, fixating on this pathetic bunch of presidential candidates, ad nauseum, will not cure the ills that plaque this society.

Yep ~PF LFYER~ I'd have a very busy year, no days off, lot to clean up. Any company who outsoureced to a foreign country would be taxed 80% off the top. TV ads would be outlawed forever for politicans. The supreme court would be elected by the people and serve no more than a 12 year term. Teh auto indust y wold have thre years to produce good electrical powered vehicles. Lots of stuff to do.

And ~NANNIE~ I'll say it again.

Ralph Nader won't win.
Ralph Nader won't win.
Ralph Nader won't win.

We need a one year King or Queen and I nominate Paul Newman, Ophah Winfrey or Jay Leno.

Just let up on HRC, please. This sense of urgency, that we absolutely must have a decision right now or the world will collapse, is a myth, a self-interested sham promoted by a) some people who can't stand HRC, and b) other people who don't care who wins but just can't stand uncertainty and have to have an answer now, right now, or they will just burst because how could they go to sleep at night not knowing who is the chosen one on whom to project their hopes or their enmity.

Remember the same urgency myth when Florida was counting votes in 2000?-- "We can't have more recounts, the world will collapse if a winner (Bush) isn't declared RIGHT NOW. God forbid that we might have to improvise for a few weeks in order to ensure that the will of the people is respected. It would be unprecedented, and this nation above all must not do anything unprecedented".

Its not the job of the MSM to step in and decide the matter. That is foolish. This is an internal matter for the democratic party and its adherents, and the party rules are that a delegate needs a certain number of votes to win. Neither candidate has the votes yet, so the contest goes on. Let the people in every state have a voice.

So, lighten up. Other countries hold major campaigns in the span of just a few months-- like the span from the August convention to the November vote. Its more than enough time to distinguish tweedle-dee from tweedle-dum if the MSM would just focus on the issues. Thats the real reason we hate to see this race go on.

I agree with Reality Checker (May 7, 2:02) that Obama can be the vehicle; we have to be the change and stay engaged. We are the ones we have been waiting for.

(But I would compromise on an Obama - KEM PATRICK ticket.)

FDR was a better president because the depression and his wife Eleanor required many actions of him that he might otherwise not have taken.

I don't think for a second that we should expect Obama, or Kuchinich, or Nader, to be our new Messiah.

They would all fail us, and the media, the military-industrial complex, an assasin, many, many things could put up multiple road-blocks or bring a new administration to a grinding hault.

An engaged electorate -- which we rarely come close to having, and always need -- is our real need. Not just on election day, but year-round, every year.

KEM: Please add to your regal agenda (1) the need to do something about the mindless brainwashing of TV, and (2) the drug induced stupor of people listening to too many pop love-songs. We have more we need to hear and sing about than sit-coms, reality TV, American Idol, and love/lust in its many forms, desired, unrequited, lost, screwed up, etc. (3) Please nationalize oil as a public utility, with profits going toward renewables, (6) require (and give incentives for) victory gardens instead of lawns, and (5) let Marilyn Manson, Rage Against the Machine and any rap group be the liasons to defense contractor CEO's for the disassembly of the Military Industrial Complex.

Just a few ideas I thought I'd throw out there. See what you think.

Jerry D Rose
Beekeeper
Athiest;

WOW with caps! So now you guys know more about what's good for Black America than Black America does! That's about as racist as it gets guys.

.

I'll say it again…

We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now

http://www.votenader.org/index.html

.

I'm going to vote for Obama, but I am shocked at Norman Solomon being so enthusiastic about the guy. Nothing he has said or done merits this sort of thing. He's better than Hillary and way better than McCain and realistically, that's enough to get me to vote for him. But he's a slick, manipulative politician, not as painfully phony as the Clintons, though he does remind me of Bill Clinton in his early days. What they say about Clinton is that he is extremely intelligent and one-on-one a very good listener, one who makes you think he's with you all the way. Obama seems to have that same effect on people.

There is plenty of info out there about the guy. He's a classic center-left Democrat. Again, better than Hillary, but then Hillary has really been scraping the gutter, with talk of obliterating Iran and her stupid gas tax pandering. But Obama is also the guy who pretends to be shocked at the notion that US supports terrorism or has committed terrorist acts. This isn't change--this is the same old thing. Yes, he's better than the alternative.

And by the way, realitycheck, I wouldn't be comparing any politician I liked to JFK. JFK was another one of those charismatic politicians whose charisma far outweighed any actual substantive contribution he made as President. He did help get us into Vietnam though. LBJ, who was even worse on Vietnam, was the traditional sleazy corrupt old politician who actually accomplished some things on the domestic front.

The world is in a global environmental crisis and all three candidates for the US presidency are showing the environmental awareness of a clerk at the Burger King drive-thru. Of the three only Obama has any hope of opening his mind to reality.

In case anyone hasn't notice our ability to secure the food, fiber and fuel needed to maintain our glorious economy is in serious jeapordy. You can't even go to WalMart anymore because the rising prices are giving people paper cuts as they leap off the floor and back onto the stickers.

By the end of the summer at this rate admitting you're a republican will be akin to stomping kittens while displaying kiddy porn. The Dems will get a share of the blame but since the road to hell has been paved with GOP billboards it won't make a damn bit of difference.

Hillary should quietly fade away while pretending to campaign to the finish. We need to quit the games and get to work fixing this mess.

Why do all the "major" candidates have two blind eyes re. the environment, both in this country and world-wide? Has anyone checked out the League of Conservation Voters?

Lillulu, why can't we let them know that we've had enough? Because of the revenge her supporters will visit upon our heads if Hillary gets pushed out before she damn well pleases. The promise that they will move to McCain if we so much as look at them cross-eyed. That is the force that is keeping her dawdling, posturing and mugging for the camera. And they know it.

"To believe in your mythical, fantasy Obama, you have to believe that Wall St. is willing to put millions of dollars behind a candidate that is going to then turn around and oppose the corporations."

Sigh...this is getting old.

1. I don't want a corporate candidate to be the next president.

2. A corporate candidate will be the next president.

3. I have to reconcile these two truths and vote for the one that shows me the most promise. I'm not waiting for perfection anymore.

RichM, the first poster is correct. Norm is getting carried away.

Obama is going to run to the right to try to get elected but it will never be far enough to satisfy those whose votes he's trying to get. This guy wears DLC, corporate Dem all over his sleeves.

Obama may have won, but we, as a country, have already lost again.

My log in says formernadervoter but I have no choice but to vote for Ralph again. Your only other option if you are a progressive is the excellent Cynthia McKinney.

Obama-Clinton Hilarious Math Update

"It's reached a point that everyone has known for months it had to reach, the point at which even people paid to do so cannot keep it going with a straight face. On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama picked up approximately 99 new pledged delegates from North Carolina and Indiana, while Senator Hillary Clinton picked up about 85. The final count may move a delegate or two, but these numbers are close enough for the following calculation.

Obama now has 1,592 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,419. There are 217 delegates remaining to be pledged. Of those 217, Clinton would need to win 196 to beat Obama, or a victory of 90 percent to 10 percent. That's about as likely as Dick Cheney hitting 50 percent approval.

Will Clinton finally at long last drop out on Wednesday? Will she wait another week for West Virginia, or yet another week for Kentucky and Oregon? Will she hang in there until June to make sure Puerto Rico doesn't win it for her, or Montana and South Dakota? And will people dumb enough to still watch television have to endure this crap all summer?

I have nothing against West Virginia or Oregon. I wish every state could be involved in the primaries. I'd hold them all on one day in October if it were up to me. But the corporate media has not been keeping Clinton on life-support these many months out of concern for the voters of remaining states. I'm glad to complain with the best of them when pundits hound decent candidates out of the race after Iowa and prior to 49 states. But once the outcome actually has been decided, why should we tolerate our televisions pretending it hasn't been?

The numbers above are based on leaving out Florida and Michigan, which are being left out, and also do not include 19 delegates pledged to John Edwards.

These numbers do not include Super Delegates. Why not? Because this is a democratic republic, and only pledged delegates are awarded by voters. These are the indisputable numbers of delegates assigned to candidates by actual voters and caucus-goers.

Clinton cannot win. Period. She can only hope for an anti-democratic coup by Super Delegates that would destroy the Democratic Party.

So, why does the corporate media behave as if it's still a contest, and why does the independent media obediently fall into line? Presumably those two questions have two different answers.

When has any other candidate been kept on life-support by media corporations in this way? Hasn't the standard for dropping out always been - for every other candidate - the impossibility of winning, not actually having lost?

What can Clinton hope to gain from staying in other than hurting Obama's chances in order to avoid his running as an incumbent in 4 years?

And why is it so difficult for people to think for themselves and let the media and the Super Delegates and the Democratic Party know that WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH?

Don't believe me? Don't know how to do addition? Don't own a calculator? Here's a video of Chris Matthews admitting the media's role in this farce:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/32937

Here's how you can contact the DNC: 877-336-7200 or
http://www.democrats.org/contact.html "
--- David Swanson

funny, the baby boomers came closer to pulling off a real revolution in this country than anyone since about 1776. The sixties got closer than anything else I've seen.

Too bad the damn kids that have followed ain't done crap.

--that's for you 'realitychecker'

Injun Trouble has been smoking something good!

That's a wonderful example of the fantasy candidate that we are supposed to pretend that Obama is. The problem is, he's not putting forward any proposals that would support this. And he's sucking up wall street and corporate campaign money with the world's largest vacuum cleaner.

To believe in your mythical, fantasy Obama, you have to believe that Wall St. is willing to put millions of dollars behind a candidate that is going to then turn around and oppose the corporations.

If you are that dumb, I've got a full-size replica of the Brooklyn Bridge that can be yours for only a couple of million dollars ... no, make that Euros (real money).

Go listen to Cynthia McKinney in person. Go hear what she has to say.

She's constantly smeared in the corporate media. Don't believe a word they say. Go find out for yourself who she is.

I was lucky enough to have formerly lived in Atlanta, so I've had the pleasure of seeing her talk and working on her campaigns. And I've seen how you can pick up a corporate paper and read about her and think that you must be reading about some completely different person.

Go see her speak in person.

Here's one thing the corporate media won't tell you. In Atlanta, her campaigns felt like an extension of Martin Luther King's old movement. You'd volunteer, and you'd be meeting people in their seventies who'd marched with the good doctor. Her dad is Billy McKinney, who was a long time activist for equal rights in Atlanta stretching back to the early 60's. That's the background she comes from.

So, you can support the phony. You can support Obama who's speech coaches have tried to teach him the rythyms of a black preacher. And who's supporters try to draw phony comparision between him and Dr. King. Or you can support the real thing. You can support the lady who grew up in that movement.

Matti: 5:11pm post: You explained your points very well.

I don't trust Dems anymore and will be voting for McKinney.
The two-party duopoly has got to be challenged.

Jerry Rose, what a brilliant post.

OK, maybe I will vote in November after all. I'm going to research Cynthia McKinney, and if I like what I see I will vote for her.

John Freeman,

Amen to that! At quite a few the events I attend, it's usually senior adults like us. Mostly white hair in the audience, at the rally or on the march. Too many of our young take everything for granted. Hard to get through to them.

Thanks for your comment, realitychecker!
I've been a big fan of Dennis Kucinich since I met him in June, 2003, and I was a precinct captain for him in Dubuque in January, 2004.
He is correct on every issue, and he's a great Congressman.
At this point there are three candidates for president, and I'm with you on Obama.

Everyone should read the comments ~TBALTIC~ posted at 4:04 pm. Then read it again and once again. Then digest it and insure you understand it.

That folks is how it is with __Obama__and ~Tbaltic~ could not have said it any better or more wisely.

Kem Patrick: Those are some lovely goals. All in favour of Kem being King for a Year say 'aye'.

Also, one thing that we need to remember when talking about the media is that the courts have ruled that the media has NO OBLIGATION to tell the truth. That's right, it's FULLY LEGAL for the media companies to broadcast FALSE information, and outright lies, under the guise of truth. That in itself really says something.

In response to qbaldsmoove who wrote:
"I just hope someone out there is willing to start talking about McCain now and ask how it was that he was getting medical treatment from "those despicable gooks" that he had days earlier been dropping bombs on, while his comrades were languishing next to him. Seems very questionable to me."

I'm an Independent and don't care for any of the 3 candidates but let me enlighten you on McCain and Viet Nam. Read below what was taken from wikipedia.com-

"John McCain's capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[36][37][38][39] McCain fractured both arms and a leg,[40] and then nearly drowned when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi.[36] After he regained consciousness, a mob attacked him,[41] crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him; he was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Loa Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton".[41][42]
Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information.[41] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care[41] and announce his capture. His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of The New York Times[43] and The Washington Post.[44]
McCain spent six weeks in the Hoa Loa hospital, receiving marginal care.[36] Now having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white,[36] McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[45] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[46] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41]
In July 1968, McCain's father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater.[2] McCain was immediately offered early release.[36] The North Vietnamese wanted a worldwide propaganda coup by appearing merciful, and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.[41] McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.[47]"

Does this still seem "questionable" to you? As I said, I am not a John McCain fan for president but he definitely has served his country well, even though we shouldn't have been in Viet Nam.

If you have trouble agreeing with Solomon on this one, regardless of which candidate you support, you have not been watching TV, reading a newspaper or listening to the radio.

Beekeeper, if Obama is "ashamed of being black," why did he marry a black woman and father children with her?? Hmmmm?

No matter what he does, Obama haters will say he's either not black enough or not white enough, blah blah blah. I'd just ignore them if I were him. All he has to do is not favor one race over the other -- which is exactly what he is doing.

CD seems to tread Obama like he is a saint and Hillary is a villian. Counterpunch is a more balanced site. We need to get away from propaganda, whether it be from the 'left' or 'right.'

Corporations, their lobbyists and the US Media are running scared. They realize that Obama if elected can directly communicate with people without the interpretation or analysis by the media pundits or the toning down and softening by the lobbyists.

A leader who directly appeals to people instead of first checking with the lobbyists and then sending up trial balloons to be vetted by the media is unheard of in the US these days.

The last president who favored people over corporations was FDR.

Obama has the potential to do all that - this is truly scary for the inside crowd.

Cappadonna3030 writes:
"And as for the AIPAC thing — Obama isn't stupid, he knows better than to screw with AIPAC at this juncture. Look what they did to Cynthia McKinney."

Well, she's running for president, which comes in handy for people who'd like to vote for a black person WITH politics. Obama may not be stupid, but he's never actually won an election where there was ANOTHER side. And then there's that MOBSTER thing. And that Patriot Act thing. And that never mentioning POVERTY thing. And that horse puckey about Afghanistan.

Voting McKinney means never having to say you're sorry.

Its interesting to see the "biased media is against us therefore we're good" thing playing out in the Dems., having been so long a staple of the GOP, isn't it?

As far as I'm concerned, until a candidate openly avows to foreswear and roll-back the unconstitutional powers accumulated by the Executive over the last 7, 27, 37 years and longer, they are running not for president but for King, not for the office of Chief Executive but for the Imperial Scepter- and so do not have my vote.

I can see all the reasons why this is unlikely to happen before an actual Convention Nomination makes someone the actual Candidate for the Democratic Party, but I just don't buy the idea that it couldn't happen After.

What would the Candidate have to worry about?

The threat of McCain? Don't buy it. You really think that the People are into the idea of Electing ANOTHER old white guy? One who's claim to fame is being shot down while bombing civilians in an unjust and nasty war, and yet supports indefinitely the bombing of civilians in another unjust and nasty war? A man so mad or desperate that though he was himself tortured by non-regular units of a nation's military, he actually Supports torture by the non-regular units of the U.S. military? A man who pledges to support every policy of a King who's reign may be the most unpopular and openly despised in the Nations's History? A King who came into Office 7 years ago with eggs pelting his limosine and will leave Office in less than one year having been a "lame-duck" for fully a Quarter of his time there?

C'mon, pull the other one.

Everyone knows that this thing is the Dems to lose.

The whole "the media is against us and they'll trick all the idiots into voting GOP" thing seems to be a sort of desperate attempt to find a way for a Dem loss to make any sense, but it ignores a few truths:

1)Everybody knows the TV is full of crap. That's right even the working class, small town people who vote GOP know this, they just think its a slightly different kind of crap.

2)Everbody knows the Parties and their Candidates are full of crap. Even in the fly-over states. That's why the turnout always hovers in the 50-60% range. Only a little over half of the People in any given year can talk themselves into voting for any of these millionaire politicos.

For the last 40 years or so, "none of the above" has won the Elections for "president" with a large plurality every four years. In other Nation-States, this is called "abstention" and seen as a problem with the Candidates, in the U.S. this is called "apathy" and seen as a problem with the Voters. A true Majority lies in appealing to this abstaining 50%.

3) "Media bias" can only have an effect if a Candidate and party are either, a) too small and divided like the Greens or b) too cooperative with the media bias. Meaning here not the B.S. "biases" of "liberal" and "conservative", but the true biases of the "medium" (i.e. the actual Television technology) for simplistic and vague language and ideas, and toward constant confrontion over them. These biases are inherent in the machine iteslf, in the same way that my car tends to drive on tires on roads and not fly with wings in the sky -it's not an airplane, it's a car.

If a candidate refuses to attend 27 "debates" hosted by TV idiots, refuses to speak in sound bytes and vagurey and instead publishes and promotes and publicly defends a series of concrete, realistic, and needed proposals the "media" would be forced to adjust. This would NOT mean BTW forfeiting an ability to get things out in the simplified short-hand TV ads and discussions force. One could easily reference "My 25 Proposals" or "Our New Way Forward" etc., and then allow citizens or journalists to look into the details.

If Barak Obama adjusts his campaign strategy in this way after he is the clear Candidate for the Dems then he may just have a chance to do more than simply take hold of the Crown and Scepter, he may be able to figurehead a greater Movement to breath new democratic (little d) vigor into the dusty halls of our Republic turned Empire.

Though if not, I surely won't be surprised.

As for Clinton, how can she be a symbol of new democratizing change if she can only win the nomination by out-dated back-room shenanigans? How can she be a symbol for democratizing change when her main claim of qualification is being the "First Lady" of a previous King?

Any nods from Clinton towards the wishes of the People will be transparent political tricks and calculations. Whether Obama is full of it or not, he certainly seems genuine and certainly doesn't have a big "LIAR" sign around his neck like Clinton does.

In 1932 the economic and social situation in the U.S. impelled the Dems and their old-money Establishment Candidate to turn politics and government into something that worked for the People. Sixty-six years later Roosevelt and his administation are still fondly and nostalgic-ly remembered by most everyone but Super-right Nazi Nutcases.

Once they get their silly squabbles settled the Dems of 2008 need to decide if they want to return to being the Popular Party of the Majority of the People, or remain the Second-Favorite Lapdog of the anti-democratic Corporatist Oligarchies.

-matti.

"They've waited how many generations to even get the vote, much less to vote a black into the Presidency, so how can you blame them for playing "identity politics" even if it interferes with their own political interests? (For that matter, how can you blame women for supporting Hillary Clinton for the same reason?)"

Exactly- it's the old divide-and-conquer routine, and it appears to be working exactly as intended.

Alice in Wonderland- I agree with you. First things first, rethugs OUT NOW and we will work on the fine tuning during the democratic administration that must come next!

Boy, you Democrats really, really hate each other, don't you? When McCain wins by a landslide in November, you won't be blaming Nader and the Greens, will you? It'll be interesting to see you metaphorically running about the streets with the blood of other Democrats in your fingers and teeth. I wonder if you'll even be around to have a presidential candidate in 2012. I guess the Republicans will have their chance to unwittingly execute America for its crimes against the Native Americans and African slaves. I feel sorry for our children, but then children have never had a snowball's chance in hell, have they?

glen goodman: Don't forget; The greater two evils are considerably evil - Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,… Bomb Bomb Iran,. Or Obliterate Iran vs. Talk with Iran. Thats enough difference for me.

Couldn't have said it better. I'd like to add... Think about what McCain will do to the Supreme Court. I'm not crazy about Hillary, but I would vote for her if she were nominated on the basis of protecting the Supreme Court from the Republicans. I sure hope that those who are bad-mouthing Obama will think about what the effect of a non-vote or a vote for McCain could bring about. McCain's choices (more Roberts and Alito's) will have a devastating impact on the quality of life for generations to come. I know Obama is not as progressive as most of you would like, but he is probably going to be the nominee, and we must support him.

Beekeeper and atheist:

I agree with the perspective of your posts of "what could be worse" for blacks than a "black" leader ashamed of them and giving the "nigger get to the back of the bus" message that he gave to Pastor Wright or the "respect the verdict" admonition to the outraged relatives of police-massacred Sean Bell. When I read of the 80% or so of blacks in NC who voted for him, I have to think of Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and ask "What's the Matter with Black Americans?" It's the same story: Frank says rural people in Kansas vote against gays and abortion and get a Republican party that gives them corporate giveaway bankrupty "reform" acts or "Class Action Fairness" (limits suing the people that hurt you) Acts, both of which Obama voted for just like his Republican buddies. Blacks vote for one of "their own" and get a politician who really cares more about his Wall Street handlers and his AIPAC kiss-ups than he does black people. And in all of this you gotta feel for those voters who are so manipulated, whether Kansans or blacks, but especially blacks. They've waited how many generations to even get the vote, much less to vote a black into the Presidency, so how can you blame them for playing "identity politics" even if it interferes with their own political interests? (For that matter, how can you blame women for supporting Hillary Clinton for the same reason?)

So what do we need in 2008 America for President? How about a truly progressive person, not a DLC clone like Clinton or Obama? How about a woman? How about a black? How about a black woman? There are several black women that I would support: Barbara Lee and Cynthia McKinney come immediately to mind. But wait a minute, McKinney is a candidate for Green Party nomination isn't she? And that puts her out of bounds, doesn't it; since we must once again troop to the polls in November and vote for one of the two candidates of the Corporacratic Party, one with an R beside his name and one with a D beside his or her name. Why? Because that's the way we play the game of Presidential politics in the U.S.of A.; and it doesn't make a damn what "generation" we are; if you're young, well kid, you're just going to have to choose between the two sides that the old farts have bequeathed to you, so shut up and get to either the D or R side of the bus, because there aren't and will never be any other seats.

The bitter pill is that there won't be any difference regardless of who is 'elected'.
A train only goes on the track laid in front of it. The Democrat train and Republican train are running on the same tracks. Obama, Clinton, McCain, are just the words painted on the side of the engine.

It not a prerequisite for me that a candidate hold all my positions or even a majority or any of specificity for that matter. I question myself often and try to learn from others. I do try to listen to opposing opinions, even if they are not well reasoned as far as i can tell. And I've grudgingly come to respect the importance, and yes necessity of nuance because a diverse society requires it (and I do respect and celebrate diversity, I was just slow in making this connection). I've come to believe that if I can judge the nuance to be genuine, it is a potential leader saying "hey! you guys have to help me with this". This is the allure of Obama for me. But I draw the line at being lied to. If you don't know what I mean you haven't been paying attention. Follow the money.

As long as the Left continues to form circular firing squads to shoot down middle-left candidates, the Right will continue to win. What is the real prize here, folks? The prize is keeping McCain out of the White House. The corporate media has a vested interest in putting McCain into the White House, and that's why we see so much "news" about the Obama/Clinton horse-race. Please let's remember that if we're talking about the lesser of two evils, that means that there is a GREATER of two evils, and that's Mccain. Let's keep McCain out of the White House, and then let's stay awake and make sure that we don't rely on either Obama or Clinton, whoever wins, to help us take back our Constitution. We have our work cut out for us no matter who wins in November; let's unite and get that work done!