I totally agree with critical think tank, wake up America, you can vote your asses off but who ends up in the big house is going to be someone that the real powers that be can push around; and Hilary's not interested in being anyones bitch. She's paid her dues in the public arena.

I think Obama's a good man, but I see someone who wants to be President of the US of A more then I see someone who wants to clean house and put America back on track. If he wins it will be interesting to see what sort of personality appears before us.

And soma90405, you're anger is very telling, I bet you're one of those gals who just gets along better with men then women, look at me! Look at me, I'm sure Hilary ignored you because crazy is written all over your face. Good Luck with that.

Time will tell all

I don't think there's much time for those with such prejudices to overcome them. However, when simply considering the stated policies of Obama and Clinton, you find few differences, so, it's kind of moot to bring up sexism and racism. Those problems do not represent the real dividing line that would lead to a Dem loss.

The real problem will not be lack of support for Obama because of sour grapes on the Clinton side. Dem frontrunner voters are party loyalists and will vote the Dem ticket. Obama actually faces prospects of losing to McCain because Obama, like Clinton, doesn't cultivate the left and progressive parts of the Party's base. Obama, with his Ronald Reagan tributes, has been trying to woo conservatives on the Dem and Repug sides. Progressives and the left are taken for granted.

The Obama campaign offers nothing for progressives. I'm not sure why Norman Solomon is an Obama delegate. I think it more likely that Obama will lose by not offering anything to the pissed off Dems. The base has been betrayed by the Democratic Congress that voted in favor of the wars and rolling back Constitutional rights. Really, Obama has offered nothing on these major issues, so why should the Dem base or progressives vote for him?

Failure to distinguish yourself sharply from the Republican candidate has been a losing proposition so far for the Democratic Party. Obama and McCain agree on the critical issues, alas. The Repug Party will play the fear factor to draw conservative Dem and Repug votes. At the same time, Obama will lose the interest of the left and progressive voters, which are more numerous.

Sounds like a losing campaign to me.

Well Norm once again you are up to your old tricks of playing the neocon shill.
In the 04 election you begged us to support Kerry ,you know the man with the plan [ to throw the election ],you fought harder against Nader who espoused the ideas that you pretend to espouse than you did to oppose the Bush agender.
Now here you are in 08 asking us to support another corporate ak the house nigger who just made an appauling speach at the APIAC meeting that is the antithisis of any progressive ideals.Is Obama another Kerry in the making ?
Just who are you Normam Solomon and what do you really stand for ?

Let me disabuse some people of a huge delusion. Ralph Nader will NEVER be president of the US. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. The British newscaster on the BBC had it right, Nader is an ego maniac who insists upon wasting everyone's time and money running for an office for which he will NEVER be elected. Period, end of story.

If Obama gives it thought - the winning ticket is Obama/Edwards in 2008.

Edwards can be a positive or "good" "Dick Cheney" type Veep. It's the perfect ticket. If Obama wants to be the first black president, a white MAN from the south that is handsome, has young children like the Obamas, who has real solutions to bring to the table to deal with our problems as his running mate will go along way to helping him win the election.

Look, it's Norm the Democratic hack at it again. Funny how to this "media watchdog" advocates censoring any other options to the left of the corporate front party the Democrats. Here he is acting like a know it all "indie" pundit yet again. Drop the fraud please.

We need other media options to the left of this apologist for our 1 party corporate political system.

Nader/Gonzales in 2008!

Hi

The democrats are not a real opposition party else impeachment would not be off the table - period.

Wake up and create a REAL opposition

Nannie,

Do us all a favor don't throw your vote away on pipe dreams

This is hilarious...
This false dichotomy of female versus black man for president. Whooohoo, what a a no brainer. These bones thrown to the masses: one white woman, one black man, one white man. The corporate shitbags feed money to each, the media, including this one, hoot and holler over white female vs. black male while the defacto white male war "hero" (who sold out his fellows in the Hanoi Hilton)sits back and is virtually ignored, while the Democratic Party fuses it's losses into a sophomoric comedy about political schizophrenia and which is more politically correct. Especially when noone can tell the difference between all three. This is not an election, people. This is a travesty of the so-called Constitution and the pablum known as "the rule of law."

Sweet dreams.

What are the odds of Nader getting 3% of the vote?

98,000 to 1.

marcy kaptur of ohio will be the VP....

she is not a total phoney on helping the workers as hillary was and is .. and she has the RECORD to back that up..

she will help carry ohio and mich and pa which will seal the election for obama... this is hillarys and bills worst nitemare... marcy kaptur will be the boss woman of the democrat party....

she is a white woman version of john edwards but with alot better and proven record of helping workers and she voted NO against this war for oil for the robber barons... unlike the crook hillary and the phoney edwards...

jimmy carter said it would be a worst mistake of any to select hillary as VP he is so RIGHT.. obama has a 6 month lead on mccain now .. when marcy kaptur is known around the country that will go to double digits.. stupid people who say obama cannot win without hillary... just the opposite... with hillary he could NOT win... all the independents would go for mccain...

Ralph Nader is greatly equipped to "work" with congress.

He has been doing it for 40 years...

40 years is one heck of an amount of experience. All working as being an avocate for justice. Oh yes he will be able to work with congress.

.

REVISED FROM THE NICHOLS BLOG SO DON'T BOTHER READING THERE ARE A FEW MORE LAUGHS-

Well, Well Mr. Solomon you really know how to touch the nerve of blog hate. But the recent speech written by Chris Hedges as Furnam University, printed in Truth Dig, says it so well for all of us who are fighting the cooperate monster and what it has created - a planet that is a "World On Edge" my documentary one that covets acquisitiveness and consumer ideology as a reason for existence, as an end in itself.

Humanity is in peril because the USA elected George Bush as president with the complicity of the media which shows the lowest level of this corporate mentality that is so much an affront to humanity, a measure of the levels of intelligence of Americans, even though it was an illegal fifty-percent that elected him to office. Bush's election to office showed the flaws of this so-called democracy, and the level that the corporate empire will sink to be able to operate with impunity in the world, to rape the very survival of humanity for their greed-driven existence. This was notably seen at the Exxon hearings before the senate and the shareholders meeting at Exxon where the lowest level of corporate responsibility was fought so hard as to show that it even sickens the stomachs of the very wealthy.

All of this to continue a global economy, known as globalization with ideas of value promulgated by a country that is two hundred and fifty years old, led by an old shock jock, born again drunkard, with little regard for intellectual thought, or the very values that spiritual thought should imbue. Welcome to America!

In the present Congress and in the blogs most people avoid reality and don't really deal with the issues head on. Most are still looking for the magic technological bullet that will save the American economy so the USA can continue on the way it's going with ever more growth and ever more and greater GDP as the bankers, advise. Even some scientists think we can continue this way of life unchanged if we just, ease a little bit on energy consumption and wait until we figure it out. SOOO, TURN OUT THAT LIGHT AND DRIVE TO THE 7-11 IN YOUR HUMMER!

There are some who say it does not matter who one votes for in this political system, yes squander your vote on in another close election with a vote for Nader - We all know how perfect this man is and that he will be able to get things done! - If Nader were elected he would not be able to enact any meaningful legislation of consequence, but i thank him for his service to the American people. Not a single bill would become law because he would not have a congress that would give him the right time. It would be a fair day in hell to get anything done. With the leadership of Nancy Pelosi's, helping Nader, it would be the worse "dream team" ever thought possible.

Moreover, however bad Obama may be, there are no illusions that he is and must be, in the hands of the Democratic machine, but at least the platform will offer some relief for the masses and there is some hope, even now felt by the world, for the future and the environment. Should Obama lose you have eight more years of the Bush/Cheney nightmare, that is just the facts so lets stop the idealistic nonsense offered up on the star-struck silver screen and your media driven nonsense TV and get real, this is the USA. There are too many important issues that require change to take chances. But some of you here have so much grand illusion that you feel that these past seven years, thanks to Nader in part, and Gore's ineptitude, were worth the experiment?

Nader is not the answer, much as I hope Obama asks his help in this failed political system backed by corporate mentality - fifty percent of Americans have bought into - must be changed quickly. The congress is where the laws of greed are enacted, such as it is, it's the system that must be changed and whether or not one likes or agrees with Obama, he has been chosen by the Demorepubs to try to change this woebegone imperfect idea of a system. Americans can be and are a much better people than their leaders have shown the world. For the first time Obama is suggesting only some of the changes that must be made. he would never dare go the extra mile and really say what is necessary. As Hume said on Fox he may be too green, never mind black.

The USA has some very serious problem that involves helping the rest of the world understand that they are not alone with the problems we all face. They must know once again and understand the people of the USA care! Obama has alluded to those issue recently. But the most important issue of all, who doubt Obama-for the first time I think in the annals of recent history or memory-the young people are involved with the democratic process. They believe in what this country could become and I with all my remaining breath will help them to do it. I too refuse to give up on hope what I once believed in and fought for, and what could become the global dream instead of the failed selfish American Dream that has become the global nightmare!

The future belongs to the young and it will be they who must take up the mantle of true change, which Obama offers and later in this primary and presidential race, all the others echoed! They the young want to make this country become what all of us here once hoped it would be, like Gore Vidal. So many of us who write here are disappointed, but for those who like what Rev. Wright said, when he spoke to the issues of his life, had to be bitter and critical about the past, I agree. He simply says many of things that Dr. Martin Luther King spoke to. Michelle Obama, recently being attacked and will no doubt be attacked by the Republicrats, is referring obliquely to American racism, which still exists but thanks to Obama is going. What Michelle Obama experienced is typical by white racist America that refuses to look in the mirror although it is now cracking not only for racism but for corporatism in favor of humanism as well.

I search my mind in wonder at the scientific and social perfection that has been attained in this forum. We have glorious information at out fingertips to tell us in great detail how we are destroying the world for human habitation. Since these blogs are a cross section of the so-called erudite community and writers who combined make the right-wing decisions for those who have been conditioned to find meaning by trying to think, I am amused with the petty squabbles undertaken here to prove that one has the intellectual rectitude to tell other fellows how to deal with crisis.

Having had a our say at the computer, well satisfied that our studious application of the accumulated data offered here has been properly digested, showing our intellects to be above the fray we continue to defend our miniscule positions of rectitude. This often involves cursing and slurs at others for some, impugning character for others, showing our Republican party credentials for some - we know that that brand is truly American-or showing our professional credentials, engineering or letters offered in proper ego sneering mode, in some instances-a group brought together to speak to the problems of humanity facing disaster. How good, a blog (definition: a collection of opinion based nonsense that lands right beside the point!) - as rarely seen in the annals human development.

Certainly a places of higher learning have produced great advances in species development but at the same time, based on the imperfect nature of thought a have allowed these advances and breakthroughs in science to turn those developments back on their creators. After a successful blog, the writers, having satisfied themselves with their contributions to the greater good, turn to the financial media to see whether their fortunes have gained significantly during their pursuit of ego gratification, so they may live out their days peacefully amused, as the remainder of the world suffers the agony of western invention and greed. As spoken from the White House, "let them eat cake" and may they choke, on it as their Asthma inhalers have lost their ability to forestall the wonders of air pollution.

I find my attention drawn to other thoughts when I read the bickering of whether the methane is spewing, leaking, puffing, or gaining greater more importance as it impacts on the climate change. I think of the institutions of science and the government led by a group of evil men and women from both parties, who in the pursuit of power, would care so little about humanity that the present leader "evildoer" would veto a bill to reduce the impact of work to limit emissions of the very gasses that would essentially destroy their children's lives. When one speaks of evil it cannot be greater than to directly affect the life of one's progeny, never mind the world where it will exist. Cold-blooded reptiles offer more protection and care for their offspring.

I have commented on previous science presented here on CD associated with climate change since this is my work. Many here echo many of my thoughts, as those above, associating GDP with CO2 but it must be recognized this condition is also associated with the laws of the USA, the governing establishment and the values of the culture which would vote for "Wall Street profit" above human survival. The places of higher learning and scientific development also teach successive generations value systems, the rule of law necessary for any society and should be discussing human purpose and meaning as it has developed over the eons of species advance.
This time we are the catalyst for our own extinction. The Chinese are producing more coal plants that will substantially diminish their fresh water supplies as well as adding to the globes greenhouse gasses, is a grand example of this environment be damned global economy. The ethanol versus food production shows us that the chance to change rapidly is out of our grasp. We have all done it!

Who here has turned off their life style or their 401ks? America's selfish opportunism has turned love to stone? Will we spin to oblivion on a dead planet, probably? Where is the profit to be found here can someone from Wall Street explain this? 
Their is a fundamental feedback problem between the economic styles that Americans are trying to get the world to accept; a consumer disposable auto centered existence, and its affect on continued life.
Sadly, the most important survival mechanism which are associated with those ideas of higher levels in thought are absent in most current curriculums, or considered so abstract they rarely find their ways into the deliberations that are involved with the discussions surrounding, for example, the use of coal to power a culture or society (most of the so-called developed world). This however is appropriate if we consider that we use Jurassic energy conversion to continue the existence of Jurassic thinkers in the present day.

I am still suffering from "shock and awe" of the "Stern Report" commissioned by the UK for the "edification" of the global community, with regard to: the dangers of climate change to the world economy. Many of you remember the UK our partners in war, global hegemony, imperialism, lying to the electorate and also a great coal and oil burning culture. The economic report was trying to let the G8 economy down easily by accepting anywhere from three to five degrees of warming. It found that the economy could stand this amount of warming as inevitable but by acting immediately through a "cap in trade" philosophy the West could continue on its merry-way to greater consumption unabated. This philosophy is flawed from the outset by accepting pollution at all, particularly under this present circumstance of a ten-year window for survival.

It must be remembered that James Hansen has warned that western culture, now joined by the Chinese and Indians, has a TEN-YEAR window to radically shift its economic direction and choices of energy into a less Jurassically intense mentality. However, Hansen too thinks we have time to retool and believes we have until 2050 to make these changes. I have reminded him that less than five years ago we had until 2100 to make these changes. We have lost 50 years of that projection in two years. At the current rate of scientific perfectitude the forty-year time frame remaining may be down to the ten years, Hansen has predicted from the outset of his research. To his credit his measurement abilities have been enhanced by the Grace satellite-greater technology to deal with greater technological disaster.

~Eugene Debs~ must have been a dreamer ~Nannie~.

" The more a man dreams, the less he believes".

~ H.L. Mencken~

.

I needanap and a cigarette...later folks...

.

.

'I would rather vote for what I want ...
and not get it,
than vote for what I don't want ...
and get it.' Eugene Debs

Vote Nader 2008

.

GE has been Obama's biggest backer ~IOWA~, and they also control much of the media.

Problem for Obama is, they Back McCain too and whom GE supports the most in the general will have a major impact upon the election. We'll see.

Can't wait for the debates. Obama should be able to smear McCain all over the floor. Of course Obama isn't the nominee yet, even though it's most likely he will be.

If Obama really wants to sit in the White House, he HAS TO WIN Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, among the other Demo states like Michigan, New York, Jersey, etc. If he loses two of them McCain wins.

He lost em to Hillary and big loses in three of the four. So figure out what he has to do. A high school junior with a 80 IQ could figure it out. So ~Bojingle~ here won't be able to see it.

BTW, ~BO~, I lost our bet, but Obama only won by a nose. ___ Remember Pinnochio?

Hi there Thomas More~. You don't see racism? Sadly it's there to a big enough degree to hurt Obama, it depends upon where you live if you see it or not.

nannie,

look, i voted for nader twice - '96,'00 and if that's what you have to do, that's what you have to do. honestly i wish your protest vote would go to cynthia mckinney.

just b/c a person works at harvard or uc berkeley doesn't mean they may not be 'progressive' or left of center. progs are just a fraction of the dem party. however, as numerous writers on these pages have noted, obama's campaign tactics suggest he may be more open to our ideas.

those donations were from individuals (what is it - 2500$ limit).

from your own source, which explains this in detail...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

{This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers}

but the vast majority (over 50% of his cash) were from donors giving less than 200 dollars. (that's 120 million dollars in small increments - think about that). if he didn't make the tactical decisions he did we'd have clinton3 next january...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041004045_pf.html

{Barack Obama credits his presidential campaign with creating a "parallel public financing system" built on a wave of modest donations from homemakers and high school teachers. Small givers, he said at a fundraiser this week, "will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."

But those with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine "bundlers," five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million.

Obama's success in assembling bundlers offers another perspective on a campaign that promotes itself as a grass-roots effort. While the senator from Illinois has had unprecedented success generating small donations, many made online, the work of bundlers first signaled the seriousness of his candidacy a year ago and will be crucial as he heads into the final Democratic primaries with a lead against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).}

nader also accepted corporate money..

vote your conscience nannie...

...peace...

.

This table lists the~~~ top donors~~~ to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's~~~ PAC,~~~ its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

PAC Money...

.

.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
TOP CONTRIBUTORS

Check it out yourself...This is NOT the "little people"

.

those contributions are from individual donors from those institutions. just like the republican billionaire egan's contribution to nader's campaign in '04..

iowablackbird...

compare that to 2000

.

Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $437,236
UBS AG $364,806
JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207
Citigroup Inc $358,054
National Amusements Inc $320,750
Lehman Brothers $318,647
Google Inc $309,514
Harvard University $309,025
Sidley Austin LLP $294,245
Skadden, Arps et al $270,013
Time Warner $262,677
Morgan Stanley $259,876
Jones Day $250,725
Exelon Corp $236,211
University of Chicago $218,857
Wilmerhale LLP $218,680
Latham & Watkins $218,615
Microsoft Corp $209,242
Stanford University $195,262

Nathan Littlefield "Nader Republicans" 09/04

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200409/littlefield2

"Nader himself claims that his candidacy will attract angry conservatives. That description, however, doesn't fit the small but distinguished group of Republicans who have given him money; most had already voted for Bush with their checkbooks, donating thousands of dollars to the President and the Republican Party. "Nader would probably deny it," says Larry Noble, the director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks money in politics, "but these people are obviously supporting him to undermine Kerry." According to data collected by the center, Nader's most prominent Republican backer is the billionaire Richard J. Egan, a Bush "Ranger" and recently the ambassador to Ireland, who has so far bundled more than $200,000 for the President's re-election campaign. Over the past year Egan and his wife have given $35,000 to the Republican National Committee and thousands more to the party's congressional candidates—so Egan's primary goal in donating $2,000 to Nader was probably not a return to Dublin as Nader's ambassador."

.

" You gotta dance with the one who brung ya "

.

.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
TOP CONTRIBUTORS For Obama...

.

Mr. Obama does not need Hillary. She thinks he does in order to get her racist white base to help him win. All the woman has done is divide the Democrats and try to destroy the party's chances of winning in November. Remember: "United we stand, divided we fall."

obama/kaptur elected in a landslide 2008

stupid kem loses his azzze with his betting cause of his mental issues..

my prediction was TRUE his was false..

this new prediction also WILL be true !!

marcy kaptur white woman PROVEN as the best help for average working americans!! and she will help carry the battleground state of ohio and mich.. and pa..

kem patrick says obama cannot win witout hillary he is just as stupid with that as with that bet where he lost his azzze... mental issues is what makes one lose bets like that..

and just wait until the masses sees these 2 campaigning .. a landslide coming!!!

marcy kaptur VP ... she will be hillarys and bills worst nitemare.. she has a REAL history of helping workers not the opposite with the clintons a history of doing the opposite..

the more marcy kaptur is seem and talks to the country the more that obama/kaptur will win by a landslide......marcy has the PROVEN record of helping americans against the corporations greed and also she voted against this war for oil that the robber barons wanted...

marcy kaptur VP.. the number 1 woman in america soon..... hillary is TOAST !!!

bojanglesA1,

good to hear your voice again, a person you might add to your list.

http://www.governor.ks.gov/about/bio.htm

"Pledging independent leadership to move Kansas forward, in 2003 Kathleen Sebelius became the 44th Governor of the State of Kansas. Governor Sebelius was reelected to a second term in 2006.

At the heart of Governor Sebelius' administration is a commitment to growing the Kansas economy and creating jobs; ensuring every Kansas child receives a quality education; protecting Kansas families and communities; improving access to quality, affordable health care; and taking advantage of the state's renewable energy assets."

...peace...

mr kem patrick, you are a man of honor -

...peace...

redstatebluedude

What the Obama people did to the Clinton's? You listed off some of what the Republicans have done in the past, how about providing some examples of what the Obama people did that you found so offensive?

How can you blame Obama supporters for the eventual election of McCain when you say you're gonna sit out the election in November and that half of your friends are going to vote for McBush? If that comes to pass, blame yourself for not voting and your friends for voting for McCain. Take some responsibility for yourself and your friends and quit pointing fingers.

I don't see all this racism some of you seem to see everywhere. And I also can't see this landslide visctory for Obama.

All the political darta suggests otherwise. He's got a tough go.

But I will say right now if he can't win, it won't have a thing to do with him being a white man or a black man. Race will have nothing to do with it.

You are making a fool of yourself again ~Bo~.

Of course that is not difficult for you.

MikeBinSC June 4th, 2008 11:20 am

Hola Mike!

You are consistent.

The guy's that were there with him say differently and thats all I'm basing my opinion on. I am happy to say I wasn't there for sure! We heard about it back then. .

I'm sure that if its not true, it will come out soon. These two guys are going to get a whole lot of scrutiny.

I am 45 years old now. I have voted for a Democrat in EVERY single election since I turned 18 ... and in all of those elections I have NEVER been as offended by any Republican campaign tactic (Willie Horton, purple Band-Aids etc.) as I have been by what the Obama people did to the Clinton's.

I am sitting this one out. I will never never never never ever cast a vote for that man. And every single one of my best friends feel the same .. about half of them are voting for McCain. So I hope all you nasty and meanspirited Obamaniacs feel good today. When we are watching President McCain's inauguration in January I think you might see what you did wrong.

It's time to accelerate the end of the global monstrosity called the U.S. of A. ... and that is what McCain will do. I will be watching it all with a grin on my face from Canada.

Idiots.

Hey ~Riverman~ or now ~Bong Jangles A1~.

It was Obama himself who was praising Hillary for ten minutes last night, ___ not I.

You won the bet ~BoJangles~. ___ I lost.___ I was certain most people would have figured Obama out before it was too late.

BTW, I am in full agreement with Obama about his opinions of Hillay's excellent attributes. You apparently disagree with him. I have never said Obama wasn't smart. ___ He is real smart.

obama may put a woman on as VP maybe one that supported hillary... and is also liked by the same dumb people..and this will then end the clintons....

this new woman will take all of hillarys voters and will gain power and fame without the hillarys baggage....

THIS is hillarys and bills WORST nitemare !!! the focus will TOTALLY change permanently away from the clintons..

who would that woman be???

barbara boxer supported hillary but voted against the war she would be the logical choice BUT california is already won by the demos and she is running for her senate seat this yr.....

marcy kapter from ohio maybe.... a very strong congress woman for workers.... she could swing the womans vote and the workers and the battleground st. of ohio.. she is a female version of dennis also from ohio..

We'll see.

one person who i trust on this subject (skepticism concerning the clintons) is jimmy carter, who seems to embolden bojangles argument for a person like marcy kaptur (13 terms in the house)....

from this mornings guardian...

US elections: Jimmy Carter tells Barack Obama not to pick Hillary Clinton as running mate...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/04/uselections2008

{"Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.

"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."

Carter, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator last night, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Clinton.

In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: "If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."}

{"The former president said: "What he needs more than a southerner is a person who can compensate for his obvious potential defects, his youthfulness and his lack of long experience in military and international affairs."}

...peace...

That is not what Obama said last night about Hilllary. ~lillilu~. Quite the contrary of how you and ~Bojingles~ here describe her.

Of course Obama does change his mind rather quickly on occasion for political expediency, as evidenced by him tossing his 20 year pastor, mentor and best friend under the bus. ____ LOL. This is fun.

ONLY stupid corrupt to the core people supported hillary cause she is a PROVEN corrupt to the core person.. by far more than anyone else..

the word is PROVEN!!!

people like kem patrick is one of the nutcases that live in forums.. and his mental issues gets him in big trouble.. like betting me that hillary would get the nomination.. he is stupid because of his mental issues....he made that bet when it was impossible for hillary to win... the math said that...

normal people don't live in forums like kem patrick does to feed his mental issues.. people like doug waggoner and be for kids katy seems to have gone but NOT the mental people like kem patrick..

newbies coming thru need to know that kem patrick as severe mental issues and his posts will be incorrect... just like his betting and him losing his azzze!!

Agi June says:
"hate to break these news to you, but Obama, until very recently, was one of us".
I think the key words here Agi June are "Until very recently",
which is part of the point I was trying to make.
In order to become a serious candidate of chose, you have to court big money. One the Criteria for MSM to consider you a serious csndidate is wither or not you can raise serious money.
With publicly funded elections you could eliminate some the influence of big money.

~HUCK~ wrote, "If Obama takes Clinton, (as a running mate) this will be the first indication he is a liar."

The first indication??? ___ Haaa Haa Haaa ha.

You're joking I presume.

BTW, did you hear what Obama had to say about Hillary last night. It sounded like a nomination speech. Hillary is a precious jewel, the greatest, a wonderful, hard working lady who cares about all of us. So it is painfully obvious, that Obama does not share the opinions about Hillary of most of the bloggers at this site and thread. You are all wrong, or else Obama is all wrong.

So you either go with Obama full bore or you don't. You can't have it both ways. If you burn a candle at both ends, you will burn your fingers.

Obama is a handful of delegates away from the nomination, and there's a pretty good chance that he will have a majority of delegates tonight. From the seething hatred expressed in the comments by his supporters today, you'd think that he was about to lose. It's ironic that the venom towards Clinton grows greater and greater as Obama gets closer and closer to victory.

I've seen practically nothing positive written about Obama on Common Dreams recently, either in the articles or the discussion by his supporters. It's practically all hatred towards Clinton, all the time. I'm no fan of hers, but accusing her of plotting to kill Obama is just as unhinged as the right wingers who accused her of killing Vince Foster and her husband of being a drug smuggler.

I thought that the Obama campaign was about a broader movement, not just getting him elected. If what I've been reading is representative of Obama Nation, then you can count me out.

If Obama capitulates and puts Clinton on the ticket, a clear sign he has rendered iligitimate the CONTEXT of his entire campaign: i.e., being an agent of change. If he decides to drag the Clinton's into the picture proof positive that the old boy network of the DLC will prevail. Also proof that the MAN does not change the office (as Obama has asserted) but the OFFICE and the SYSTEM changes the man. If Obama takes Clinton, this will be the first indication that he is a LIAR and not worthy of a vote by anyone who calls themselves progressive!

Oh, Norman. I'm so disappointed in you! --

The anger that's churning among many Hillary Clinton supporters is deserving of respect....

- The hell it is. // Hillary Clinton is an utterly unprincipled sociopath & a liar. She deserves no respect whatever. She has no solutions for the problems this society faces & indeed is part of the very disease that has dragged us down to where we stand today. She has no business even being considered for public office, not even dog-catcher. She was only a "viable contender" in the first place because of her vicious slashing ruthlessness, her lack of principles, & because she's married to an influential sleazebag whose politics are to the right of Richard Nixon's.

What Norman Solomon is really saying here is simply that he's getting nervous that Obama might not win, due to Hillary's disgusting divisiveness & the political immaturity of her fans. As riddimboy (12:07 pm) and kelmer (12:45 pm) noted above, Norman "does tend to rally around the Dems at election time." He's very "radical" between elections -- but as soon as the next Republican boogeyman starts looming on the scene, he become Mr Weak-Kneed Democrat again. This seems to be a recurrent thing with him.

Ouch. Hillary for V.P.?? It is known that she would do anything to become President. Is Senator Obama that naive to believe, that given the slightest opportunity, she wouldn't arrange for his demise? A lust for power, no matter what the cost, seems to be her nature.

To Barack Obama:
It has been reported that Hillary Clinton is "open" to the Vice Presidential nomination. I am urging you NOT to select her. In my opinion she will weaken the ticket, much as her nomination as the presidential candidate would have probably assured a Republican win. My reaction to the report of her fishing for the VP job was, "Oh, no." My 18-yr old first time voting son's reaction was visceral, and extremely negative. He stated that he would not bother to vote. He views a Clinton VP nomination as a betrayal of all that you have campaigned for -- a return to old politics and cynical deal-making in order to win, without regard to principle. I realize there is some time before the selection will be made. Perhaps this is part of a choreography that will allow Clinton to exit gracefully. But, I warn you, much as John Kennedy wound up with Lyndon Johnson as his running mate out of a sense of etiquette which compelled him to offer the selection to Johnson, whose acceptance of the nomination was unexpected and shocking; you may wind up with the Clinton albatross around your candidacy. Be careful. Be very, very careful.

Not intending to open Pandora's Box, I am voting for Ralph Nader. I know he stands a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but I will not vote for Obillarymccain - three political hacks who are bought and controlled by corporations and AIPAC. I have withdrawn my membership with the Democratic Party and sure as f**k will not join the Repugnican Party. As far as I am concerned, you can take all of the Dims and Repugs and drop them on an abandoned island. These people stood by while a modern-day genocide, er slaughter of more than 1.2 million Iraqi civilians took place. One can only imagine how gut wrenching it is for an Iraqi father to have to cry in pain because a group of soldiers gang-raped his fourteen year-old daughter and dumped her body in an alley, and then planted a gun next to her to make her look like she was an insurgent. He has no legal recourse. Tragically, this was not an isolated event, but happens quite frequently. Male soldiers rape female soldiers, and women working for contracting corporations also are raped by their male counterparts and are forced to shut their mouths or lose their jobs, and maybe even get killed. And everyone is busy fawning over Obama or Billary or Senile McCain. These people will not change a damn thing! To me, the only sensible and decent man is Ralph Nader. Criticize me. I don't give a s**t! I am tired of this illegal occupation and phony politicians who only tell people what they want to hear, yet have no intention of holding those who committed war crimes accountable. It is total bulls**t!

Thomas More, you really should give it up. McCain's word is all you have to support his "War Hero" status, and he is a pathelogical liar, just like Bush. Even McCain admitted that they broke him while he was a POW.

McSame is a coward, a traitor, a war criminal, a thief, a neo-con thug and a fascist enabler. He deserves every critisim that we can lay on him.

The one thing you can count on when it comes to a Clinton: IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THEM, HER, or HIM!

The Clinton's bring new insight to the concept of NARCISSISM!

thank you normon soloman for your thoughts,

obama will be the next president, what transpires after january '09 is contingent upon our participation.

crying about the constraints of our political system/culture will not benefit us, applying pressure on our politicians while continuing to protest and raise consciousness so we can elect local officials receptive to our 'progressive' values will make a difference...obama (despite his imperfections) is the electable candidate most receptive to our ideals.

---------------------------
stuckinreverse June 3rd, 2008 12:53 pm,

"Many of us are truly just fed up with Bush's and Clinton's and our support for Obama has nothing to do with the gender of the current Clinton trying to get into the White House."

- i don't understand why this is such a difficult point for clinton supporters to grasp...
------------------------------
glenn goodman June 3rd, 2008 1:32 pm

"I hope that Obama does not give in to pressure to include her on the ticket. It would possibly be fatal to our chances, as well as to his life. She has brought it up twice and like Lyndon Johnson, I don't think she could say no to such a horrible idea."

remember macbeth...
-----------------------
John C June 3rd, 2008 1:45 pm, - good point about dem's not accepting responsibility for the clinton's egregious behavior (lewinsky, nafta, slashing welfare rolls, iraq sanctions) 10 years ago.
-----------------------------
soma90405 June 3rd, 2008 1:46 pm,

"The republicans' choice for democrat candidate for president is Clinton and that should be considered greatly by democrats even thinking about giving Clinton their support."

bingo, would these clinton supporters have been as bitter about edwards (who has endorsed obama) if he was the candidate. let's see, what's so unique about barak that would discourage dem voters from appalachia (and elsewhere) from supporting him. figured it out yet atheist?

"She truly is a monster who has yet to really apologize for any of it."

let's not forget she also has never expressed regret for her authorization of war vote.
-----------------------------
rebelnow June 3rd, 2008 1:59 pm,

"Losing your memory? It's so sad really."

excuse me but when has one of the 2 parties not controlled the government? if it's sad, then it's always been 'sad'. and your indictment of the pathos of our culture ultimately comes back on the third parties who have been unable to capture the prerequisite local and state seats needed to capture control of our government.
-----------------------------
criticalthinktank June 3rd, 2008 2:19 pm

i've noticed the only folks claiming obama is 'messianic' our clinton supporters. do you know something we don't? please share before the general election so we can win over those religious repub voters...

"He spent so much money on commercials to get the Democratic nomination that it makes you sick. Gross spending by a Man with a big head, and just as mouthy as Clinton."

unlike clinton that money was raised from individual donors over the inet (ala H dean), clinton spent money too, money generated from her husbands political associates--
------------------------------
toomuchsun June 3rd, 2008 3:03 pm,

"I wish there was a strong third party in this country, but at this time, there is not."

the correct answer to rebelnow's concerns, if we want a third party in this country we need to start building one from the ground up (like the vermont progressive party). a figurehead w/ no substance (say a nader presidency w/ zero green seats in the congress) will achieve nothing.
-----------------------------
Hank Fur June 3rd, 2008 3:30 pm,

"Haven't we been doing that for close to twenty years? Is it working?"

you must be speaking of supporting non viable third party candidates. we don't live in a parliamentary democracy (germany) we live in a flawed republic and until we fight in our neighborhoods for the policies we want (w/ third party candidates) your critique of norm is moot (the guy who founded FAIR).

"I can no longer trust Norm's opinions because of his obvious bias."

so who do you trust besides nader? (obviously solomon and b mcchesney, 2 of the foremost media critics in this country are closet corporatists).
--------------------------------
lillulu June 3rd, 2008 4:24 pm,

"She's craven and egotistical.", "I hope Obama... doesn't choose her for VP." - i agree.
----------------------------------
Mordechai Shiblikov June 3rd, 2008 4:25 pm,

i think lieberman has dibs on that position.
----------------------------------
Elderlady June 3rd, 2008 4:51 pm, - you are a goddess (no sexist connotations intended).

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807
------------------------------
hey atheist where do you buy your LSD??? and why haven't you already migrated to a respectable republican site.it seem's like you might enjoy it..

...peace...

Let's not forget that Clinton hired Mark Penn, CEO of the union busting public relations firm Burston-Marsteller, as chief strategist for her campaign and then had the gall to parade herself as the candidate of working people who would reform NAFTA which she supposedly never supported but which in fact she did. And let's also not forget her talk about "obliterating" Iran which was a completely irresponsible thing for her to say. I've never had a problem with her gender, my problem with her is her Liebermanesque corporate politics and the resulting bellicosity that flows from it.

"jareilly" says...

Jacob Freeze's peculiar post struck a nerve but not the way he intended. All our debates in this country quickly and inexorably plunge to traded accusations of "hate-speech". You can't question anybody anymore, let alone publicly disagree, without somebody accusing you of "insensitivity" or "hate-speech" or "bigotry".

If "jareilly" bothered to read exactly the same thread where he posted this remark, he might have noticed that two different posters on this thread accuse Hillary Clinton of plotting the assassination of Barack Obama.

Maybe "jareilly" doesn't see or hear anything he would call hate-speech emanating from Obama's supporters because "jareilly" has his eyes shut and his fingers stuck in his ears...

Otherwise it's hard to miss, especially when it's all over a thread where you're posting yourself.

lillulu, why is it inappropriate for CLinton to mention RFK's assassination ? Do you think Obama is the only target ? Don't you understand that Hillary Clinton too is a target ? Is she not allowed to say certain words because her opponent is black ? How racist of you.

Btw, Clinton didn't publicly announce that she would accept the VP position, the info came from an "unnamed source" and the source got the info from a phone call. So much for privacy !

Thomas, thank you for suggesting to people that they pay attention to the Trinity Church congregation's response to the outrageous remarks of the speakers. It seems as though one of the purposes of the church is to ignite hatred of whites by blacks. And Obama sat through TWENTY YEARS of these services ???? He must have condoned them ... until it became politically inconvenient to do so. I wish someone had a video of him hootin' and hollerin' over some anti-white racist remark.

"Still, though, there is a chance we could elect Hillary as VP."

No there isn't.

athiest, I'm not a bigot FYI. What Hillary said was inappropriate. Get over it. You're just angry and bitter because your old "girl" lost. You seem to have a very short memory. Hillary is the one who brought up race.

It's not up to Hillary to say she'd be VP. It's up to Obama to choose whomever he thinks would be best. It's also inappropriate for her to say she's willing to be VP before he even offers it to her!

I wouldn't mind voting for a woman for president if she were the best candidate. Hillary is not.

peacenow June 3rd, 2008 3:09 pm

Hillary didn't bring this stuff up. It was floating around since last year and was broken out at last by ABC. The rest was taken care of by Wright and Pfleger and Moss. Its quite a bit more than one or even a few remarks. Watch the videos of these guys, but watch the congregation. If you can say then that Trinity isn't a racist church, well I probably ought to say a church with a preponderance of racist members, theres nothing else I can say if you don't believe your own eyes. This was nasty stuff.

What it has to do with Obama is that it calls into question his judgment and remember his story on Wright changed second time around.

I'm not a Clinton supporter, I'm still waiting, but what I was trying to point out if this had come out this summer, Obama would have had no chance of being elected. In that respect I think its helped him. Its up to him if he explains or not.

I assume you are for Obama and will vote for him, which is great. But he needs a whole lot more votes than he has now and from a diverse voting population.

Remember there's a lot of bitterness from many of the Caucus states about the way the caucus's went.

I wasn't trying to be critical particularly of Obama, but thats my assessment of the way it is. And if he doesn't get high behind, they will absolutely slaughter him with this stuff in the fall.

The one caveat here is McCain is perfectly capable of inserting his foot in his mouth and chewing on it. He has at times looked like a centipede doing that remember and he has a real problem with illegal immigration in his own party.

"Ayers and his wife? You mean the one Bill PARDONED?"

Thats the one! A pardon doesn't make them different than what they were and apparently still are.

"As well, Obama has shown nothing but grace and poise"

I have to agree so far.

Btw 'bots, you sound like little children when you take "offense" at Clinton's comment about RFK's assassination. Don't you know that the reporter who interviewed her was shocked that this became some kind of (pseudo) scandal ? He was there, he heard the remark in context, and he knew it was a factual comment.

But go ahead and keep spewing, and further ensure your candidate's loss.

Just want to add here that I'm getting sick of these Obama- and Obamabot-implemented limitations ... if you're white, you can't talk about race, you can't say the word "assassination" (as if Clinton is any less a target !) ... good job, bigots.

Great rant soma 90405!

Clinton is even less qualified for the Supreme Court than Edwards is. For the Supreme Court position we really need someone who has at least argued in front of that court, and even Edwards in his 20 years as a practicing attorney has not.

Clinton COULD, however, be AG. But in order for me to vote for Obama, she must be offered the VP seat, she cannot be a post-election appointee. My vote is for sale, and I'm driving a hard bargain. I know the Obamabots would have done exactly the same had Clinton gotten the nomination.

Barack Obama is the best hope we have to bring some sanity back into American politics! Please let him not choose Hillary Clinton as VP. Having the Clintons in the White House would surely mean in-fighting and misery for him and his people. I think a much better idea would be to put Hillary on the Supreme Court--first available seat! I would love to see her take on Clarence Thomas Antonin Scalia and the other sexist bozos! Then Bill could be appointed to fill Hillary's Senate seat in NY and find an outlet for his enormous energy, knowledge and ambition--and keep him out of Barack's face.

I don't want Senator Clinton on the ticket. It has nothing to do with anger. It has to do with winning in November. Senator Obama has spent months campaigning on a platform of "change." Hillary Clinton is not change. She is the same old, same old. The Democrats will probably win New York, whether she's on the ticket or not. The V.P. Candidate should be somebody who can bring something to the table, such as a swing state. And the V.P. slot should also bring "change."

Bill Clinton, since the Vanity Fair article is a liability no campaign should have to endure.

None of this is anger. It is logic. I do not believe that the people who supported Senator Clinton, are going to run, not walk, to the nearest election office and switch their party affiliation from Democrat to "something else." The women who supported her know that if McCain gets elected, he will possibly support two justices to the Supreme Court. They also know that they cannot continue to mortgage the future of their children and grandchildren. Additionally, they know this country cannot afford to continue this senseless, costly war in Iraq. Give the American voter his and her due. Common sense will prevail. There is too much at stake this year.

The time for anger is past. The time for common sense is now. Democrats are going to vote the Democratic ticket, with or without Senator Clinton in the V.P. Slot.

"..."the Clinton and Obama partisans spent months fighting bitterly on the toxic terrain of misogyny, racism and religion..."

And one has to ask WHY?

Rove couldn't have planned it better.. Or didn't he?

Too True! However, since neither one of them ever addressed the social problems of the US, and are both going to go on spending for the war, who cares which one is nominated and or wins the presidency - we'll just get more of the neo-repulsives agenda, and who knows the 1,000 years of Gingrich could come into being.

Hillary want to be VP now.

She could run as VP for both Obama and McCain! That would be really cool.

Bill could campaign for everyone... and debate himself publicly. He might like that.

Hillary Clinton will become Secretary of Defense in the first bipartisan McCain regime. I'm waiting to hear her justify the wars McCain will start, as well as his call to reinstitute conscription. Go ahead, Hillaryites . . . vote for McCain. Hope your drafted sons and daughters don't wind up serving in Syria where Johnny Boy will soon be bringing democracy and enlightenment to those heathens and born terrorists.

I find it very telling that someone would say "outside of Austin" when accusing a whole State of being racist.

Speaking of staying backwards............

MikeBinSC June 3rd, 2008 11:41 pm

Go back and look at what you said was evidence of McCains "cowardice" truthfully, do you think that site is truthful? I certainly don't. It reminds me of a lot of the stuff from the early seventies. Same rhetoric.

I believe based on the evidence of the men that were there with him and the fact that he was there for 7 years and suffered evident torture that I'm not sure I could stand, a bit better evidence than that.

So I'll just disagree with you.

Clinton has no class. She couldnt even bring herself to concede.
If he makes her the VP he is a fool. Sniper fire Clinton will be working to get him killed.

Obama was a gentleman and never tried to destroy Hillary as she tried to destroy him. The arrogant way she acts reminds me of George Bush.

Rick June:

"The big pictures is that all the candidates are members of the extremely well to do club and really have little in common with the average family in America.
We are possibly facing the biggest economic crisis in this countries history.
Do you honestly think any of these candidates can relate to the hardtimes many Americans are facing?"

I hate to break these news to you, but Obama, until very recently, was one of us. He and his wife have only recently finished to pay their own student loans and they understand how Americans feel. The brilliance of Obama is that he's been able to beat the Democratic establishment at their own game from within. And the number one issue that made this possible is the war in Iraq.

Regardless of what the polls say, the war in Iraq is the number one issue when it comes to people supporting a candidate. Yesterday's defeat of senatorial Democratic challenger Andrews in New Jersey is one more example of this. It wasn't age, it wasn't the economy, it was the war.

The Democratic electorate has been very wise to present a candidate that is going to make the vote in November a referendum on Iraq instead of taking the issue off the table by nominating Clinton. This is the one and only reason why she and everyone else is losing. This is the issue that is going to make the difference in November.

http://politicjock.blogspot.com/

Wow. Obama is now the presumptive nominee. For all intents and purposes, he's won. Instead of congratulating him, and talking about what a great President he'll make, the Obamabots are still spewing hate at the Clintons. There's nothing progressive about this.

soma90405 (about 18 from the top). Very well said sir. Your thoughts eloquently echo my own.

Why did all the big corporate bucks flow into the Clinton and Obama campaigns? Why did the MSM deem them the only two candidates worth covering right from the beginning? Why were the other candidates shunted aside, excluded from televised debates, and otherwise marginalized in every possible way? One simple reason. Obama and Clinton are the only two candidates who could possibly lose to John McCain. Edwards, Richardson, even Biden, would win in a landslide. Now there is a very real chance the Republicans will retain control of the White House.

the MOST Stupid thing EVER.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the very people that are voting for hillary clinton is the VERY people that she and bill has stabbed in the back repeadedly and witha clear history of this..... this has got to be the MOST stupid thing ever in politics... and makes one understand that with democracy and allowing the stupid people to vote... hitlers and monsters WILL get elected to destroy the country..

some say they have doubts about obama......the thing with the clintons there are NO DOUDTS.. they are a proven enemy of these very voters... their very worst enemy but they still voted for her and him...

hillary was on the wal-mart board ... the most anti labor company in the world...

hillary turned 1000 into 100,000 with the cattle futures thing from a TYSON chicken exec.. which was nothng but finding a way to spend the money under the table the clintons were getting from tyson in order to do tyson favors .. govt officials CANNOT spend the money under the table cause of if spending goes over the recorded salaries then people WOULD KNOW.. so they had to pretend they somehow earned it..

bill and hillary pushing nafta and gatt thru congress to help lower wages on americans to enrich the robber barons.. and when they did this .. this industrialized china which then had to use alot more oil.. so now we have high fuel prices cause of the clintons lowering americans wages with their unfair trade deals for the robber barons to china...

clinton voted for this war for oil for the robber barons..

the universal health care.... most people think this means the rich will get taxed so all americans will have free health care like europe and canada.... NOPE she will MAKE people pay the ins premiums out of their already lowered wages by them .. she will even GARNISH peoples wages...

so the clintons have been PROVEN as the single greatest enemy of working america.. but these people have voted for her... the MOST stupid thing ever in politics..

the wise will start separating from the areas where these people are ... cause they know how harmful the politics will be in THAT area... very harmful govt and lifestyle in areas that has these people that supported their very worst enemy.. all these women . wise men will never get serious with...wise people will never deal with these people in business or anything..... and THIS separation will SPEED up the destruction of these areas where the stupid lives....

we already have proof of what happens when the wise leave the dumb... a ghetto

Hillary based her campaign on the Karl Rove model. She would base her vice-presidency on the Dick Cheney model. Say NO!

Hillary is macho. She voted for the illegal attack and continuing funding of the occupation of Iraq. She voted against the ban of cluster bombs. She wants Iran obliterated.

She's brought up the word "assassinate" at least twice. She's delusional and believed she could win when the odds were clearly against her. She's craven and egotistical.

Her supporters are angry, bitter, sore losers and plan to vote for McCain. What does that say about her? She's a neocon.

I hope Obama, who has been a gentleman during all of this, doesn't choose her for VP.

Wow ! Now Obama is surely screwed. Hillary wants to be VP !! Breaking news .... Obama has genuine reason to fear for his life. Her talk about assassination is beginning to take on a new meaning. She will not stop at anything to get her 'prize' even if it means destroying the Democratic party and everything else in her path. This is what raw ambition looks like. Ugghhh.

I find it highly suspect that Clinton cheerleaders are working in tandem with the Republicans in attacking Obama instead of McCain and his reactionary right-wing religious hate mongers and loons.
Wonder how many Catholics still identify themselves as Catholics despite the Church's ruling on birth control, abortion and gay rights? Wonder how many still go to mass, after the countless scandals of priests abusing children--something suppressed by the vatican--notably the present fascist Pope, for years and years and years.

if you were listening to npr this morning, you would have heard a news story in which it was offered as fact that mccain is a long-time advocate of climate protection legislation --

check it out -- by november, all ms media will pronounce him 'prince of light' -- by contrast, obama will be 'prince of...well, you know'

If you don't want to read all of my comment, at least scroll down to the end for the jokes.

THE BODY SNATCHERS GOT NORM! How do I know this?

He supports corporate candidates! He triangulates with the best of them! He won't criticize Obama. He imagines/hopes that this is a good strategy, better than supporting candidates who are unflinchingly progressive! He has no ideas except the one where he and his cohorts, "Take-over the Democrat Party." Haven't we been doing that for close to twenty years? Is it working? And the worst part about it is you have to shut up about your corporate candidates so as not to spoil their chances.

What would you say if I told you I plan to take over Halliburton ... starting from the grass roots? You might say, "You'd have to tunnel in. You wouldn't get to the basement floor before you'd be eliminated. Either that, or you'd have to become one of them." Both parties are owned and controlled by big money, as is Halliburton. So what makes you think the Democrat Party is any different?

Why triangulate and waste another twenty years trying to wheedle your way into the corporate world, when you have the Green Party already there waiting for energy? And Ralph Nader is already running a very progressive campaign. You won't have to tunnel in! You won't have to triangulate and lose your soul. You won't have to put pretty signs up in your yard that say, "Support Obama! Killer of the Innocent (mostly children) of Iraq!" oops I forgot, can't say this, can't say that, won't, shouldn't .... Instead, according to Norm, we must keep to the narrow talking points, "He didn't kill the children himself, he just gave money to those that would." "Obama made a good anti-war speech years ago." or "Obama is hopeful," or "Obama is better than McCain."

I'LL HAVE TO DO NORM'S JOB FOR HIM
Obama's comment: "We must be as careful leaving Iraq as we were careless entering." This is very clever. I will translate: Bush rammed through the invasion and occupation that has continued with bi-partisan support. Therefore, Democrats are going to keep it up, illegal or not. It's our war, now. From now on, we get the lion's share of the money!" (I'm channeling the healthy Norm Solomon. I wish him a speedy recovery.)

Yes, it's difficult to stay true to your beliefs, but should you censor and misrepresent truth in order to triangulate? Is this any better than all the other politicians who go along with the ruling elite? How is it different? Doesn't going along eventually sink in to the core, doesn't it begin to deflate your original intention? That's what the party is hoping.

If Norm was critical of his candidate, I could take him and his strategy more seriously. But he isn't. He is, however, quite comfortable dissing Ralph Nader for running against the corporate Dems. Norm says that, "Corporations love Ralph Nader!" Look in the mirror, Norm. Body-Snatchitus is a serious affliction. The corporations love it. You're just where they need you to be, in the fold.

Why doesn't the progressive anti-war movement have any teeth? Answer: The Democrat Party kicked them all out!

What does the peace "movement" need? Answer: A laxative!

After all the love for Clinton, McCain proceeded to piss all over Obama on the eve of his win---I thought that was pretty crappy, but really nothing compared to Clinton's dilusional ego performance--acknowledging Obama's run, but not his win and still continuing her divisive tactics--leveraging her votes for her own selfish aims. She is disgustingly selfish and her greatest strength is she has no shame, channeling Nixon. The Clintons have no class--everyone should recognize that by now--Clinton would be a better VP pick for McCain--they are a perfect fit in their mutual admiration.

The big pictures is that all the candidates are members of the extremely well to do club and really have little in common with the average family in America.
We are possibly facing the biggest economic crisis in this countries history.
Do you honestly think any of these candidates can relate to the hardtimes many Americans are facing?
The way see it, is that their really little choice for the average American among these or any other Presidential candidates.
The top 1% have two parties representing their interests, the other 99% have no one representing theirs.And yet we continue to call this a democracy..
I am not going to vote for any of these candidates, we need a real peoples choice. But, with the system as it is, it not going to happen.
We need to get the big money out of the process,by going to publicly funded elections.
Until this happens this so-called democracy, is a nothing more then illusion.
Thankyou Mr.Solomon for continue to support this illusion.

I can't recall the exact words Jeffrey Toobin used, whether he called the Clinton's "deranged narcissists" or just referenced "the deranged narcissism of the Clinton's." David Gergen winced at the directness, but anyone who remembers Bill's endless nominating speech at the 1988 convention, where he plainly was showing that party that they were going to lose thta year but would have Glorious Him in '92, has its exact replication in Hillary's delusionary 'victory in the popular vote'. Sure -- like showing up after a track meet is cancelled, running to the applause of the people who showed up in the stands, and claiming that you should get all the medals and your times should count because it would be unfair to the people who applauded. That's all the "votes" were in the null "elections" in Michigan and Florida -- as Obama quietly said a couple of weeks ago, Florida was a "name-recognition contest".

So even accepting the notion that Hillary in some way "won" non-votes which she said beforehand would be null, until they were her only hope, is accepting the "we-make-our-own-reality" template.

All Bill & Hillary care about is their "legacy".

jareilly -

Great post. The common denominator in all of your examples from Lyndon LaRouche to Johnny Cochrane is that the critic who voices opposition to a specific partisan policy issue is replied to with a hyperbolic ad hominem attack.

Issues, please. Let us debate issues, rather than focusing upon our opponents' possible motivations or mental processes.

As to John Edwards, my hope is Barack will break with tradition and designate Edwards as his Attorney General nominee at the Dem national convention - and then have Edwards out openly campaigning on a platform featuring restoring respect for the rule of law inside the federal executive branch.

And while we're at it, let's recognize the republic would be much better off with Bill Clinton as US ambassador to the UN than with Hillary moving into Dick Cheney's slot as Veep.

Bill from Saginaw

June 3, 2008 Republicans begin to highlight Clinton's criticism of Obama. Hillary is working for the Republicans. She and Bill did everything they could to destroy Obama. She doesn't deserve to be vice president.

NEW YORK (CNN) " Hours before the polls closed Tuesday in the final two Democratic presidential primaries, the Republican National Committee began circulating a video of Hillary Clinton questioning Barack Obama's qualifications to be commander-in-chief, and acknowledging John McCain has this important presidential credential.
"Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002," Clinton says in the one-minute video of CNN's coverage of a news conference she held on March 8, the day Obama won the Wyoming caucuses. "I think that is a significant difference. I think that since we now know Senator McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that."
"And I think it is imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. And I believe I have done that. Certainly, Senator McCain has done that. And you will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy."
The RNC posted the video on YouTube early Tuesday afternoon, just as Obama was on the verge of locking up the Democratic nomination and speculation heated up about Clinton being his running mate.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/03/republicans-begin-to-highlight-clinton%e2%80%99s-criti...

Just saw her speech tonight. Good gawd, what is wrong with this woman. She spoke and acted as though she was still campaigning with no end in sight.

Watching Hillary's antics tonight reinforced why people hate her so much. Clearly she is willing to put herself above the party. How is it possible to be so blind that you cant see it ? Is it possible to be so utterly shameless ?

The Democratic Party is way too divided now and Obama stands to lose in November and the blame will rest squarely on her shoulder. Its probably a good thing. Its time to take a wrecking ball to the Democratic Party and rebuild it anyways.

Are 'hard-working white Americans' and 'older white women' really that stupid as to vote against their own economic and social interests ??

I did not read the previous 100 plus comments. I skipped to the end after reading how Hillary as VP would save the bacon for the Democrats.

More like throwing the fat on the fire! After watching the loutish and petulant behavior of the Clinton duo for the past several months, do you really believe the McClaynton supporters would care about 'unity' and vote for a Black Man, rather than someone who supports "Hard Working Americans! White Americans!"

Not bloody likely. And if an Obama/Hillary ticket moved far enough to the right to pick up those votes, the tendency to support the real Republican rather than the phony would defeat them anyway. Especially when the opponent is a White man without a skirt running along side him...

Talk about feeding the suicidal fantasy of a bi-polar nation!