Ric Abreu [September 3rd, 2008 1:55 am] wrote: "If the Dems were serious about being antiwar that's what they would do. They are not opposed to it enough to put up a fight."

Keep in mind the Senate is currently 49 Dem, 49 GOP and two independents. One of those independents is Joe Lieberman and you already know about him; the other is Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Dems. There are ten to fifteen Dems who usually vote with the GOP on issues of national security.

BTW, the AIPAC speech is de rigueur for every major-party presidential candidate in America. In the past, Obama has also called for a peaceful and fair settlement to the Palestine/Israeli problem. Once Israel's far-right government is gone, Obama will have more room to work.

""I do not buy the one about having to keep the troops in harms way in order to support them."

I don't know anyone who does who isn't a Republican. I certainly don't; Obama doesn't.

"You may be right in that Democrats would rather continue the colonial style occupation for the rape and plunder of Iraq's oil wealth rather than risk being called unpatriotic for not 'supporting' a war most people are against. You figure."

Since I never wrote any of that, you've got me – what are you talking about?

"Do you mean a million like the ones that have been killed in Iraq by the US? Who put us in charge of the world? Who says might makes right? How many ruthless dictators has the US supported and sponsored around the world? Did you know when Saddam Hussein was murdering Iranians and Kurds he was being helped by the US and funded by the CIA. Who do you think sold Iraq it's WMD? The US!"

What does this have to do with my comment on Afghanistan? Obama isn't responsible for what past administrations have done.

"Oh please don't try to paint the US as being in the Middle East to help the people. The US is there for it own self interest; for oil!"

I didn't. Who are you ranting at?

"Obviously RSJ you buy into imperialism and the right of the US to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations whenever it sees fit. In this regard the US is a rogue nation itself. The US didn't get UN approval and invaded Iran anyway. Do you agree with this too?"

No, I don't. I have no idea where you got this idea, but it wasn't from anything I wrote.

"Both parties not exactly the same but are enough alike. Obama has said he is open to off shore drilling. Apparently what it a huge difference for you isn't for me. Look, Big Business runs this country not the people. The president is just a water boy that carries water for the powers that be. If they get out of line they don't get elected."

Hmmm, in your earlier comments it certainly sounded like you thought both parties were exactly the same: "The Democrats and the Republicans are both the parties of corporate America and Big Business."and "It won't really matter whether a Democrat or a Republican wins ..."

As to your other point, there is precedent in history of a Democrat getting elected president and then rejecting the desires of the Fat Cats -- FDR. Much to the dismay of the powers-that-be, Roosevelt imposed higher taxes on them, and regulations on their businesses. You never seem to entertain this scenario in your musings about Obama.

I do know this RSJ:
1. A vote for Obama will not end the occupation.

You don't know that to be true. He has promised to pull out of Iraq within 16 months. It remains to be seen whether he'll fulfill that promise. In the meantime, this is simply your opinion.

2. Obama wants to increase military spending.

True. Much of that is to improve veterans' services and raise military pay.

3. Obama's advisers want to keep Bush's Defense Secretary Roberts Gates.

I have no idea where you got this idea. Where's your source?

4. Obama has wants more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.

True. So? That doesn't mean he wants to start more wars. McCain has already assured us he'll be starting more wars. That's a major difference.

5. Obama wants to add an additional 90,000 troops.

Our combat readiness is nearly broken and our troops, both regular and National Guard, are exhausted from Bush's overdeployment. Of course he wants to add more troops to improve our readiness in a real emergency, especially Guard forces who do such things as assist people during natural disasters, such as floods and fires, in their home states.

6. Obama wants to intensify the war in Afghanistan.

Not true. He wants to go after Al-Qaeda and protect the Afghanis from the psychotic religious zealots in the resurgent Taiban. Eventually, we can turn this over to the UN, once Obama has proved he'll cooperate with relief efforts instead of try to dominate them.

7. Obama wants to keep over 60,000 troops in Iraq to guard "our" oil.

That's not true.

"If Democrats weren't so like Republicans Pelosi wouldn't be their leader. Kucinich would be their leader if most Dems were actually progressives not Pugs in disguise and their 2004 Vice Presidential candidate wouldn't be making speeches at the RNC. Lieberman was after all, Obama mentor wasn't he? It's okay, you can't see it."

I think voters in California should get rid of Pelosi and elect Cindy Sheehan. For that matter, I think people we should vote for the most progressive candidate on the ballot who has a chance of being elected for Congress and state and local offices.

Just to be accurate: a Senate committee chose Lieberman to be Obama's mentor -- he had nothing to say about it. Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman bill that basically gave Bush license to attack Iran.

As promised yesterday, here are my answers to your questions:

Ric Abreu [September 1st, 2008 2:20 pm]: I wish I could find a Democratic Party supporter that could answer this:

1. What have the Democrats done for you the last 2 yrs since taking over the Congress? How about the last 4 yrs, last 8 yrs?

I shouldn't even answer this question, since I'm not a registered Democrat but, just for the sake of being a good sport, here's a short list: They increased the minimum wage, passed a government transparency act, funded research for clean-energy alternative-fuel vehicles, increased services for PTSD and homeless veterans, passed a new GI Bill, and passed a whistle-blower protection act. If you want more, you'll have to do your own homework.

2. Why have they not impeached Bush? Clinton was impeached for a blow job!

Ohio Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced a bill to impeach Bush a couple of months ago. It didn't pass and was referred to the Judiciary Committee for further review. It's still under review. You can read Kucinich's 36 articles of impeachment here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/busharticles

3. Why did Democrats help grant immunity to Bush and the Telecoms for illegal spying?

Maybe because they had reason to think that Bush/Cheney would crack down and declare martial law, absolve Congress, suspend the next presidential election, and cause a Constitutional crisis that would ruin this country. Which side do you think the military and law enforcement would be on in such a showdown -- the 'commander-in-chief' or the Congress? They weren't willing to risk finding out, or so the story goes.

4. Why did Obama repeatedly vote to fund a war he "opposes"?

Actually, he drafted legislation in January 2007 to tie funding of the war to the withdrawal of our military forces from Iraq. It didn't pass. All of the other votes were to make sure our people over there were provided for -- don't forget that Bush was holding them hostage, threatening to cut necessary items like equipment and clothing to force Congress to vote for his war funding. Obama was, literally, between Iraq and a hard place on these votes and he came down on the side of the rank-and-file military.

5. Why don't the Democrats stop the war when all that is needed is 41 Senators to filibuster. This last one is obvious, they aren't opposed to war, they just want to refocus it in Afghanistan.

Because it won't stop the war. They can cut the funding, but then the Pentagon can use discretionary funds to keep the Iraq disaster going for a while and meanwhile use the Big Media to paint the Dems as unpatriotic and not supporting the troops. Also a filibuster brings all Congressional action in the respective chamber to a halt, meaning no money flows from the government -- how many months of sustaining a filibuster, if the Dems even had the votes to do that, until the majority of Americans come after the Dems with pitchforks and install a permanent GOP majority in Congress in the next election? As far as Afghanistan, if we pull out completely, the vicious thugs in the Taliban will regain control and murder hundreds of thousands, or perhaps even millions, who cooperated with the US or have rejected their insane form of Islam. Do you want to have that blood on your hands?

Some Democratic Party apologist (DPA) will try and excuse them by saying they didn't have a majority all those years. But that is a red herring because notice how the Republicans still manage to call all the shots when they are a minority. Republicans still get their appointments confirmed, war funding and they passed FISA.

The GOP, as I have pointed out, isn't calling ALL the shots. Besides, a President Obama with a Democratic majority in Congress can reverse much of this Bush/Cheney nonsense and prosecute the rest.

Democrats cave because they have no principled opposition to Republicans. On the big picture issues like war, imperialism and global domination they work together like a hand in a glove.

Read above. Besides, the Democrats aren't a monolith that thinks and reacts in lockstep; there are some who are principled and some who are not. There are Dems like Kucinich, Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold and conservative idiots like John Breaux and former Democrat Joe Lieberman.

One is the real McCoy, the other, a junior partner crying wolf. It won't really matter whether a Democrat or a Republican wins, the wars will go because they are good for business.

If that's true, that they are both exactly alike, then you have to answer my question: Why would Big Oil give more money to McCain after he came out in favor of offshore drilling -- if both parties are alike and will do the same things, then why spend the money?

While you're at it, you might answer the rest of my questions, as well.

Picking Palin highlights McCain's poor judgment. He has selected an inexperienced political cipher to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Obama, on the other hand, has selected one of the biggest advocates of the Iraq war for his mate, slapping the face his antiwar supporters.

RSJ September 1st, 2008 5:20 pm looking forward to it RSJ. You wrote, "My friends out on the road at coffee shops, diners and truck stops around the country tell me Americans already are awake, and suffering greatly in Bush's collapsing economy -- the GOP 'brand' is a loser this year, and so is McCain.

-the tough part for Dem Party supporters like you, RSJ, is to try and explain why it is Bush and the Republicans were able to collapse our country while the Democrats stood by and DID NOTHING. What happened to the "opposition party?

Crying wolf begs the question: How did the wolf get loose while the Democrats were supposed to be watching the hen house?

I know you have no credible answers to why Obama funds a war he is "against", why Democrats have refused to impeach Bush and why they capitulated on FISA. I look forward to your mental contortions and acrobatics. They will be needed to explain these things.

Ric Abreu [September 1st, 2008 2:20 pm], I'll post answers to your questions tomorrow (I don't have the time today). In the meantime, you might come up with some answers to my questions.

tumblewind [September 1st, 2008 9:08 am], ignore the national polls -- those are done with 1950s methodology and count the responses of people with landline phones who are willing to answer questions from pollsters. No surprise, they turn out to be older, whiter and more conservative than the general population. Besides, the Big Media want a close horse race -- it's good for ratings.

38 million Americans, and probably more, were interested in hearing what Obama had to say last Thursday -- higher numbers than American Idol, the Olympics or the Academy Awards. That's an encouraging step in the right direction.

My friends out on the road at coffee shops, diners and truck stops around the country tell me Americans already are awake, and suffering greatly in Bush's collapsing economy -- the GOP 'brand' is a loser this year, and so is McCain. This is why Rep. Tom Davis III (R-VA), in a rare flash of honesty, told CNN last May: "The Republican brand is in the trash can. If we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf."

Tom Davis on CNN http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/16/ec.01.html

Did you see that Palin's 17 year old daughter is five months pregnant--- out of wedlock!

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/palins-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/?hp

I wish I could find a Democratic Party supporter that could answer this:

1. What have the Democrats done for you the last 2 yrs since taking over the Congress? How about the last 4 yrs, last 8 yrs?
2. Why have they not impeached Bush? Clinton was impeached for a blow job!
3. Why did Democrats help grant immunity to Bush and the Telecoms for illegal spying?
4. Why did Obama repeatedly vote to fund a war he "opposes"?
5. Why don't the Democrats stop the war when all that is needed is 41 Senators to filibuster. This last one is obvious, they aren't opposed to war, they just want to refocus it in Afghanistan.

Some Democratic Party apologist (DPA) will try and excuse them by saying they didn't have a majority all those years. But that is a red herring because notice how the Republicans still manage to call all the shots when they are a minority. Republicans still get their appointments confirmed, war funding and they passed FISA.

Democrats cave because they have no principled opposition to Republicans. On the big picture issues like war, imperialism and global domination they work together like a hand in a glove.

One is the real McCoy, the other, a junior partner crying wolf. It won't really matter whether a Democrat or a Republican wins, the wars will go because they are good for business.

Go Greens! Go Nader! Go any 3rd party that is opposed to war, for people and against corporate and government corruption!

At some point even the most myopic American's are going to wake up to the stench coming from the Republican Party!!! Their sleaze rhetoric has become legendary. They are fast becoming the party of 'right wing lunatics'! I am aware a lot of American's still believe every word of it. My husband gets sleaze rhetoric e-mails from a guy down the street on Obama and instantly deletes them. Why bother reading it? Most is so far fetched only a moron would believe it. But, there are also a lot like me who refuse to even be a part of it. Who are starting to tune out Republican's completely. They have no credibility, ethic's or a glimmer of character. So anything they have to say is instantly disregarded. We all know why he picked Palin! It's to please the religious nuts in his party who might have considered not voting for him. They are controlled by these religious hacks.

madcow, I don't want a new government every hour on the hour like Italy.

VP McMilf was for the Bridge to nowhere, now is against it?

"The money that's been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done," the newspaper quoted Palin as saying. "This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper."

SO her very first statement to the American People on the national stage was a LIE???

Obviously, her talents are wasted as VP...McMilf for President!!!

"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats

www.NotOneMore.US [August 31st, 2008 3:42 am] wrote: "My advocacy for third party voting is to get people out of the constraint of thinking that there are only two parties."

That's a sensible plan. Been working out well the past 8 years hasn't it?

www.NotOneMore.US [August 31st, 2008 3:42 am] wrote: "You must realize that you are being misleading (or just ignorant and malicious) if you think that I (and others) who criticize Obama are doing it so that McCain gets elected."

Telling progressives to vote for ANY third party is tantamount to telling them to vote for McCain.

Regarding your point about Dems using fear to get out the vote: NotOneMore, you are using fear to try and get people to vote for a third party, so I wouldn't cast stones. All politicians do, including Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. Yes, I think not having a Republican in the White House for the next four years is a damn good reason to vote for Obama, especially with a disaster like McCain as the only viable alternative. As Werther at Antiwar.com says, he's "The Most Dangerous Man in America":

"McCain's love of war and diplomatic brinkmanship is nothing if not sincere. Perhaps it is the only sincere thing about the man." [...]
"All ... [of his] flip-flops illustrate McCain's near-total lack of sincerity: he doesn't really care about the issues at all. In practice he changes positions so easily because the positions themselves are throwaways. He is required to have them for political purposes, but they mostly bore and annoy him.
"There is only one thing he cares about, and that is building an altar to Mars. War is the one fixed star in the McCain universe. You will find no flip-flopping or prevaricating there."
-- Werther, "The Most Dangerous Man in America," Antiwar.com, Aug. 20, 2008.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/werther.php?articleid=13325

Some progressives are immature and unreasonable -- 'sophomoric,' to use your term -- about politics the way they are practiced in this country, I agree. The fact that you have a website means nothing -- anyone can start a website -- and I'm still not convinced you're not a plant from the GOP. After all, a Republican started the PUMA group of supposedly angry Hillary Democrats. This is the dirty underhanded game Rove has played since he was in Texas, updated for the Internet Age.

As I said in my previous post, I have kids and I love my country and it would be totally irresponsible of me to put the nation in McCaniac's hands for four years just to try and make some fatuous point about third parties. What if President McCain just decides to shut down any opposition at all -- where is your third party nonsense then? Who's going to stop him -- the same Supreme Court, with another 'Scalito' on board nominated by McBush, that put Junior in office?

Answer me this: If McCain and Obama are exactly the same and will service the same corporate interests as president, why did Big Oil bother to give more money to McCain after he flip-flopped and decided to support offshore oil drilling? It's a total waste of money if they are both the same, and Big Oil doesn't have a habit of wasting money that way.

SnowWolf [August 31st, 2008 6:50 am], your knowledge of Chicago politics is woefully outdated and naive. What you say about vote fraud was true 50 years ago but not today. (If it were true, the African-American Harold Washington would never have been elected mayor in the 1980s. The remnants of the old 'Hizzoner' Daley Machine hated him.)

musawwir [August 30th, 2008 8:52 pm], FACT: Those are NOT facts you presented, those are your opinions. Please don't patronize intelligent people by trying to present your opinions as fact.

Questions for Nader or Third Party Voters

Nannie, three questions:

1. If Ralph Nader has as much integrity as you claim, then why did he renege on his 2000 promise to build the Green Party into a true national party?

2. Since the popular vote is meaningless and only the electoral vote determines the presidency, how does Ralph become president when he's not on the ballot in enough states to get the required number of electoral votes to win? (Only Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party is on the ballot in enough states -- 48 -- to theorectically win the electoral vote.)

3. If Ralph should somehow become president, how does he enact such things as single-payer universal health care or transitioning to renewable energy without the support of majorities in the House and Senate, since he'll have few supporters in either chamber of Congress?

(You Cynthia McKinney supporters can respond to those last two questions, as well.)

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. Whenever I try to pin down exactly what will happen if Nader, or another third party candidate, actually gets elected, his/her supporters go blank because they haven't really thought about it, or they just don't know how our system of government works. They seem to think we are electing a monarch rather than the head of one branch of a tripartite government.

Since I don't view a political contest between flawed human beings as a self-righteous religious crusade or the election of a saint, I'm not voting for the lesser of however many evils -- I am voting for the least imperfect of all of the imperfect candidates in an imperfect election in an imperfect country in an imperfect world full of imperfect people.

As I've posted before, if you find the perfect, or even near perfect, candidate who has a chance of getting elected, let me know. He or she will have my vote.

In the meantime, it's either Obama or McCain, and Obama is the least imperfect of the two by far.

ike kay August 31st, 2008 2:58 pm writes, "This is a one party system if you want more choice try changing it to a parliamentary system."

-Conclusion: The system is screwed up but keep buying into it because you have no choice. Keep riding in the back of the bus. Keep voting for Dems. Keep voting for Dems while they sell us down the river and offer us a crumb of "hope".

"Wake up children!"

Very difficult to read these American political opinions for the most part! All this griping here as usual with your flights into the never-land of Peter Pan and all here who would like to be children consumers in this liberal so-called progressive blog. Hoping for the choices that are not supported by the political machine. yes! Mr. ex-prisoner showed us his desire to pick someone extremely intelligent if he dies, we see his choices clearly. The dream-merchants here who want nothing but purity of thought and an end to the political meanderings of this so-called democracy are so immature..

The reality of this world pits the American Dream now become the the western worlds dream and the world's nightmare represented by both political parties and supported by all of your 401ks. Lets stop the nonsense out there. There is only one choice, to take a chance on a little change represented by a black man who will try within his limited power to change the way business is done and someone who will continue business as usual! Obama can only do only so much, Nader or anyone else can do nothing!

This a a one party system if you want more choice try changing it to a parliamentary system. Good luck! That will happen after we are under thirty feet of water. In this system and the way it is in reality not in Disney Land you have a single possibility of a little change rather than no change at all!

Wake up children! There is only one choice, like it or not the other option is no chance at all in this warming hell to stop the end of the human race like the snowball that is gone!

ajsmith10001 August 31st, 2008 10:21 am writes, "I don't believe that many of these people who say they support Nader, McKinney or Bob Barr are being truthful. How can ANYBODY consider WASTING their vote by voting for someone who has absolutely no chance of winning and will only hurt our chances of stopping the destruction of what is left of our rights by another right-wing administration."

Okay, ajsmith what have the Dems done to stop the destruction???? Why did the Dems vote to destroy our civil rights (FISA)?????

The Democrats and the Republicans are both the parties of corporate America and Big Business. You would have to be self deluded to think the Democrats actually stand for the little guy. What did the Democrats do after Katrina? Why is Bush not in jail? Why? Because the Democrats and their leader, Nancy Pelosi have steadfastly protected him.

One the issue I care about the most, WAR, the Democrats are no better than the Republicans. As long as Democrats continue to vote for sell outs then 3rd parties will never stand a chance.

Third parties can't win because most "progressives" won't vote for them. "Progressives" won't vote for them because they can't win. It's a circular argument. Those that do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Keep voting for Dems and keep getting sold out. Sold out on the war, sold out on health care, and sold out on civil rights. Voting for a Democrat is a WASTE! Keep voting for them and see what you get.

ldnearthesea August 31st, 2008 10:01 am writes, "Hey notonemore! I know that Nader, or for that matter McKinney or Barr, don't have a chance of winning this election. For crissakes, if you really want fascism, it will happen by continuing the Cheney presidency with McSame."

-what this Dem Party supporter doesn't seem to realize is that the Democrats have the power to both attempt impeachment and stop the war and instead have protected Bush and funding the very wars Democrats claim they are against.

The Democrats have done nothing to stop Bush except rubber stamp everything he asks them for. Obama voted to give Bush and the Telecoms immunity for illegally spying on us. The Dems voted to confirm virtually all of Bush's right wing appointments. THE DEMS REFUSE TO IMPEACH!!!!! Obama sounds like a warmonger!

Insisting the very Democrats that allowed the Republicans to trample over the Constitution are the solution and not the problem is ludicrous.

How can ldnearthesea cry wolf with a serious face and claim, "The Democrats will save us?" Why should we vote for Democrats? What have they done for us???

I don't believe that many of these people who say they support Nader, McKinney or Bob Barr are being truthful. How can ANYBODY consider WASTING their vote by voting for someone who has absolutely no chance of winning and will only hurt our chances of stopping the destruction of what is left of our rights by another right-wing administration. Anybody suggesting that Obama is no better than McCain is either a troll or an idiot. Here is something from PFAW that outlines the top ten dangers that McCain poses to the Supreme Court:

10. The Bush administration has used its faith-based initiative to support its favored preachers. Bad enough, but how would you feel if the administration spent that money to hold a series of “Christian nation” rallies? Not much you could do, now that the Supreme Court with Bush’s new right-wing Justices has limited taxpayers' ability to challenge violations of the Establishment Clause.

9.With the help of Bush’s new Justices, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of school officials who punished a student for holding a banner at a school-sponsored event that expressed a message administrators didn’t agree with ("Bong hits 4 Jesus").

8.Lilly Ledbetter worked just as hard as any man in her factory, but got paid less. She proved it in a court of law, but the company appealed, and the Supreme Court slammed the courthouse door in her face, declaring that Lilly had lost the right to sue because she hadn't complained about the discrimination soon enough. Never mind that the Court's ruling would have required her to sue before she knew about the unfair pay disparity.

7.In 2006, the Supreme Court cut the reach of Clean Water Act protections. But it could be worse: one more right-wing Justice, and the Court would have eliminated protections for more than half of the nation’s rivers and streams!

6.For the first time in 35 years, the Supreme Court said that politicians could outlaw a specific abortion procedure — with no exception for the health of the woman. And with the vote of one more Justice, the Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

5.The Court struck down voluntary school desegregation plans used in Seattle and Louisville. Now students are more likely to attend schools where everyone looks like they do.

4.Charles Riegel needed to be put on life support after a catheter burst in his body during angioplasty. Don't worry, though — the company that made the catheter didn't have to pay a dime after the Supreme Court ruled that, since the device had received FDA approval, the company could not be sued for damages under state law.

3.In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that states couldn’t make criminals out of people for being gay or lesbian. One more right wing Justice on the Supreme Court could reverse that progress, making same-sex couples outlaws in a dozen states.

2.Imagine: You’re a breast cancer survivor. One day during an examination the doctor brings a drug company sales rep into the room, doesn’t tell you who he is, and lets him observe your exam (while you’re undressed!). You sue. The judge tells you it’s your fault, and throws out the case. What happens? In the Bush administration, that judge gets nominated for a promotion.

And the number one reason for progressives to unite and save the court in 2008:

In 2000, the Supreme Court stopped the vote re-count in Florida and handed the presidency to George W. Bush. Since then, President Bush has moved the courts further to the right with two Supreme Court justices and hundreds of lower federal court judges. This election will determine whether our Courts will start to be repaired — or if they’ll continue their dangerous decline.

You can learn more about the Supreme Court and how the 2008 election can affect your rights and liberties here on SaveTheCourt.org.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a fundamentally sick society"- J. Krishnamurti

Hey notonemore! I know that Nader, or for that matter McKinney or Barr, don't have a chance of winning this election. For crissakes, if you really want fascism, it will happen by continuing the Cheney presidency with McSame. Anyone with their head screwed on right knows that Obama with a democratic majority is possibly going to push ahead many progressive bills, and will keep another right-wing nut off the Bench, and a progressive-thinking judge appointed to the Supreme Court for once; and just possibly the rich will have to pay taxes again, and people with Arab-sounding names might not get disappeared anymore! Get a clue! You must be a 5th column Rovian, and no one on this site should take you seriously, but should counter every one of your insane and stupid arguments to vote for Nader!
Regarding tennismom: give me a break with your endorsement of Palin. She's a governor elected by a state in which every citizen gets a Federal Government subsidy check because of all the oil drilled from it. If that ain't some form of socialism, I don't know what is, and I don't hear her saying that the checks need to be returned to Washington! Then there's the issue that the corporate-owned media, the propaganda ministries of the Republican Party and George W. Bush, if you will, fail to mention: she as governor has sued on behalf of Alaska the EPA's decision to put the polar bear on the endangered species list! She hates bears (they keep getting in the way of those pipelines) like McInsane hates Amtrak (as he thinks no one takes trains)!

Hey notonemore! I know that Nader, or for that matter McKinney or Barr, don't have a chance of winning this election. For crissakes, if you really want fascism, it will happen by continuing the Cheney presidency with McSame. Anyone with their head screwed on right knows that Obama with a democratic majority is possibly going to push ahead many progressive bills, and will keep another right-wing nut off the Bench, and a progressive-thinking judge appointed to the Supreme Court for once; and just possibly the ricvh will hve to pay taxes again, and people with Arab-sounding names might not get dissapeared anymore! Get a clue! You must be a 5th column Rovian, and no one on this site should take you seriously, but should counter every one of your insane and stupid arguments to vote for Nader!
Regarding tennismom: give me a break with your endorsement of Palin. She's a governor elected by a state in which every citizen gets a Federal Government subsidy check because of all the oil drilled from it. If that ain't some form of socialism, I don't know what is, and I don't hear here saying that the checks need to be returned to Washington! Then there's the issue that the corporate-owned media, the propoganda ministries of the Republican Party and George W. Bush, if you will, fail to mention: she as governor has sued on behalf of Alaska the EPA's decision to put the polar bear on the endangered species list! She hates bears (they keep getting in the way of those pipelines) like McInsane hates Amtrak (as he thinks no one takes trains)!

mccain poked our eyes out with this pick. i don't generally like maligning anyone, so i'll just say palin is unfit for the office for which she is running. and who is taking care of her downs syndrome baby? the father? or a nanny? something is wrong with family values that would force pregnancy on many while not taking care of her own born baby.

for peace and sustainability

Palin is just another token "see we're ALL for equality!" Republican. Condi and Colin were the same. Maybe they thought they'd cash in on disgruntled Hillary supporters so they picked the most rabid anti-choice, gun loving conservative female this side of Coulter.

Phyllis Schlafly would have made a equally good choice.

josh999 August 30th, 2008 6:57 pm writes, "I'm no great fan of Obama...but the thought of a McCain-Palin administration scares the crap out of. I just sent him a check. Settling for the "lesser of two evils" seems a lot better to me than watching the country (and the world) go down in flames during our lifetime.

-I was wondering if you could explain to me why the Democrats have failed to halt the Republican agenda you so fear when they control both houses of the Congress and could if they so chose?????

Lesser-evilism still gives evil. Both parties will give us war. Time to be brave and take back our country by rejecting both mainstream militarist and corporatist parties of the Military Industrial Complex, Big Business and Big Oil.

1. A vote for Obama will not end the occupation.
2. Obama wants to increase military spending.
3. Obama's advisers want to keep Bush's Defense Secretary Roberts Gates.
4. Obama has wants more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.
5. Obama wants to add an additional 90,000 troops.
6. Obama wants to intensify the war in Afghanistan.
7. Obama wants to keep over 50,000 troops in Iraq to guard "our" oil.

Why do you think Obama will save us? Is it his fancy speeches, platitudes, feel-good phrases, and baritone voice? Have you examined his votes on FISA and war funding or heard him saber rattling against Iran, Pakistan and Russia? A vote for Obama is a vote for war!

RSJ August 30th, 2008 6:38 pm writes, " Hmmm, 'divide and conquer' -- I bet Rove read that in the history books."
-this is a typical Democratic argument where in their minds they cannot concieve of anyone being opposed to Democrats for say,

1) Refusing to stop funding the war
2) Refusing to impeach Bush
3) Refusing to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allowing right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirming right-wingers into the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamping gargantuan military budgets
7) Allowing Bush to spew 935 lies about the war
8) Allowing Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granting Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:_____________________________________.

OH NO IT COULDN'T BE THAT!!!! It must be a Republican hack dressed up as a liberal on CD working for Rove. In the simple black and white, good vs evil, Democratic good vs Republican bad, there is no room for both Democrats and Republicans being owned by the same interests. Oh no, it just couldn't be that a poster is against both parties on principle. IT MUST BE A REPUBLICAN HACK!!!

Just what have the Democrats done for us the last 8 yrs that would merit a vote? Why should we vote for Democrats that aren't reasons to not vote for Republicans? If we are antiwar why would we want to vote for Obama when he wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan?

If Democrats won't impeach Bush, uphold the Constitution or stop the war why should we vote for them? So McCain won't win? So what! What's the difference in terms of war plans? One wants to escalate the war in Iraq the other wants to escalate in Afghanistan!

I will vote for Cynthia McKinney because she represents my beliefs and is trying to build up the Greens, but I would advocate voting for Nader or the Socialist Equality Party before voting for Obama!

Courtney 10:o5 p.m.:
What in the world?Would you care to translate your opening and close-which appear to be Latin? Self indulgence-or mere taunting?

John McCain's Wandering eyes here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RN5xbWtNSU&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/185656/197...

Enough!

McCain is 1) afraid of death and 2) likes to be around attractive women. Hence Palin's selection. Not very profound reasons for a vice presidential selection but McCain is not a profound person, just a Republican. Has he shtupped her already? Probably.

Choosing Palin kills the "experience" argument.
-yea, like choosing Biden kills the "antiwar" argument.

I'm not sure if William Greider, a prominent political journalist and author, knows most people vote for the president, not the vice president.

Let's look into the future shall we? It's Noon on January 20th and after a shocking turnabout Ralph Nader is on the steps of the capitol to take the oath of office. He raises his right hand and repeats the oath and then gives his speech. The next day he presents his first legislation to Congress.

Congress is 47% Republican 52% Democrat and 1% Independent.

Since he is neither Democrat nor Republican they try to table virtually all the bills he puts forward. His budget is gutted and added to and then presented to him. He then vetoes the altered bill. Right away both parties start pointing blame at him and the MSM goes along. Now Americans become convinced that Nader is a bad president; his poll numbers go into the single digits.

All this before his first 100 days have passed.

Erbium Solitons,

The future of America and the world goes through Alaska. The bridge/tunnel that will connect USA with Siberia/Asia will go through Alaska. This is a project that will help bring peace and progress to the world. It will be built. The question is when. Perhaps soon. The melting glaciers of Alaska will quench the thirst of the lower 48 states. Perhaps McCain (being from dry and irrigated Arizona) realizes that California, Texas, Nevada, and other water-short states will need to find fresh water fast. In the longer future maybe efficent desalination plants will provide fresh water, but something needs to be considered for near-future needs. If global warming is accelerating thereby causing glaciers in the lower 48 to rapidly deplete...and underground water aquifers like Ogallala are becoming hard to work...Alaskan fresh water will help lower-48-America. Alaskan oil and gas will provide the feedstock (plastic) that will transport the fresh water south via massive billion plus gallon plastic bottles. Said plastic will also be used to create vast greenhouse complexes that will ensure reliable food production.

Osmium without Iridium

Fact: Republicans listen and respond to their base.

Fact: Democrats and Rabid anti-democracy Democrats could care less about their base, they ignore it, and instead try and become and more and more like the Republicans. Ala Barak "I'll bomb Afghanistan and Pakistan" Obama.

Fact: Liberals, because they dare not confront their candidate about the war, and the bombing of Afghanistan, and the daily slaughter of Palestinians by their Zionist friends, will instead indulge in all kinds of serious fear mongering about the opposing Republicans --- even though, even though, their candidate is no better, and may infact be worse.

Fact: With the selection of Sara Palin, the Republicans have responded to the clamoring of their base - and with a fascinating intelligent choice that has electrified the Repubican base, and they will deliver a resounding victory to McCain.

Fact: Obama with his pro-zionist and pro-war lets go to Afghanistan policy has abandoned his base and is becoming more and more of a Republican with every passing hour.

You wanna vote this election? Vote Nader, and/or Vote McKinney.

But please don't patronize intelligent people with this nonsense about Obama --- the guy is a bunch of crap, and so is the moth foaming anti-Palestinian pro-Iraq war running mate of his.

http://almusawwir.org/resistance/

.

Madcow, can't you come up with your OWN originality???

.

When you consider that the same corporations are supporting both candidates and, therefore, cannot lose whomever is "elected", the decision might have been made (as in 2004 with John Kerry) to take a dive this time and let Obama win. After all, we've had eight years of hard core Fascism with Bush, so maybe it's time for Fascism Lite. The American people are already scared shitless after the 9-11 operation and the stormtroopers (see the streets of Denver last week) have effectively crushed what little dissent was left. Perhaps it's time to roll out the kindler gentler version of the New World Order.

I believe Palin was picked as cover for stealing the election yet again. Despite polls to the contrary, there will be a faked "last minute" exodus of women from Obama who will vote for McCain. We have been conditioned to disregard exit polls now after that elaborate farce four years ago. Once again the exit polls won't match up with the results, but we'll nod our heads... remember they were "wrong" four years ago! The MSM will immediately and relentlessly sell us on the fable that women surged to McCain at the 11th hour because of Palin.

Why bother to vote if you are going to vote for a third party that shall not get elected. Is it some kind of symbolic gesture?
Every election it is the same old crap. This is the silly politics of self-indulgence and narcissism. Would it were true that a third party vote mattered. It is nonsense. Even in 2000 the third parties had no effect. The votes that were counted were 5-4 in favor of Bush. So the system is corrupt, so change the system. Unfortunately or maybe fortunately it is not going to happen by voting. This is the reason that most people in the USA do not vote. So third party people sell me the simple and easy solution that is usually wrong. Or as Sonny Wortzik said in Dog Day Afternoon: “Kiss me. ... Kiss me. When I'm being fucked, I like to get kissed a lot. "

.

Nader can win....... The voters will decide.
Nader will change things.
Nader is our only hope.
Nader is the only choice.
Fight the Two-party system.
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…

.

.

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

.

Palin is a joke.

But that doesn't matter. All that matters is that she's somebody people connect with (George Bush, anyone?) Five children, she uses the word "cool" (watch some interviews with her), and rides motorcycles- whereas Obama is smart and eloquent-obviously an elitist. Even more dangerous- the Right Wing, with all their money, power, and organization, is now elated and energized, because all they care about is abortion. This proves McCain's anti-choice credentials. We don't have to worry about her siphoning off Hillary-supporters. We have to worry about her siphoning off suburban moms and working-class social conservatives, the very demographic that Obama can't seem ndto connect with. One small slip from Biden and the Democrats get accused of sexism- and in a debate, how can you make a pro-choice argument with somebody who decided to go ahead with a pregnancy even though her child had down-syndrome? And the press is eating it up, playing into his "maverick" image.

So yes, it shows his lack of judgment, and yes, if he dies (which he very well might, given his age and four bouts with cancer), she becomes president. But either way, Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned, and we get a McCain presidency with all its beligerant war-mongering and irresponsible spending driving the economy (further) into the toilet.

All that matters in American politics is image. And she has one that people can identify with. People are overlooking Palin, and not realizing the magnitude of the danger she brings.

I'm no great fan of Obama...but the thought of a McCain-Palin administration scares the crap out of. I just sent him a check. Settling for the "lesser of two evils" seems a lot better to me than watching the country (and the world) go down in flames during our lifetime.

His choice of vice-president shows that John McCain was never really concerned about great and boring resume-type listings of experience at top of the country--it was all show. How much else of John McCain is all show?

www.NotOneMore.US [August 30th, 2008 2:24 pm] wrote: "Vote Green Party, vote Nader, vote Third Party."

I always find fascinating these posters who don't seem to care whom you vote for -- Greens, Nader, Constitution Party, American Nazi Party -- as long as you don't vote for Obama. I also notice that this poster at least reveals his or her true colors by complimenting McCain, even though denying he or she will vote for him. Since I've seen this same imprecation under several different screen names here at CD, I can only conclude this is some kind of organized tactic. Hmmm, 'divide and conquer' -- I bet Rove read that in the history books.

progressiveparty [August 30th, 2008 11:59 am], you need to lay off the sauce for a while. If McCain wins, there won't be any 'progressive revolution' just more of the same dismal nonsense of the past four years. Sure, eventually the country will fall apart, but I love my country and my kids and don't want to see either have to face total disaster. That's completely irresponsible. Obama is not the end, just the beginning to getting our country back.

callmeparanoid [August 30th, 2008 12:24 pm] my understanding is that the Obama camp will have poll watchers and lawyers deployed across the nation to guard against election theft and prosecute it if it's detected. Don't forget, many states like Ohio now have Dem administrations in power instead of corrupt Republicans, so that will also make a difference.

paleomarc [August 30th, 2008 12:27 pm], if the nude shots don't exist, rest assured someone will Photoshop them.

musawwir [August 30th, 2008 12:29 pm] 38 million Americans watched Obama Thursday night give one of the most brilliant political speeches of our time -- a larger audience than the Olympics, the Academy Awards or American Idol -- and most of them were nodding in agreement. Obama not connecting with the working class is a fiction dreamed up by his opponents and echoed by the Big Media. And calling Obama an elitist is another ludicrous canard -- he owns one house worth under a million; McCain has 7 to 10 worth hundreds of millions. Palin is no populist -- she's an ultra-conservative in the back pocket of Big Oil and the energy companies, an evangelical Christian who believes in teaching Creationism, and hardly non-partisan. The Republican woman she most closely resembles in her thinking is Phyllis "No ERA" Schafly of the Eagle Forum. For Gods' sake, she voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000.

Before anyone even thinks of voting for McCain-Palin, make sure you read "McSexist: McCain's War on Women," by Kate Sheppard, In These Times, July 24, 2008. It will open your eyes to who this man really is. http://www.alternet.org/story/92546/

Remember that McCain has opposed 125 women's rights laws and wants to appoint Supreme Court judges who will get rid of Rove v. Wade. He was against the 2008 GI Bill. He wants to keep Bush's tax breaks for wealthy people like himself. He voted with Bush last year 95 percent of the time. (Some maverick.) And he's an emotional man, possibly suffering from untreated PTSD, who makes rash decisions in moments of anger. There are six solid reasons why we can't allow McCain to be president.

VFTW [August 30th, 2008 12:29 pm], you're right, and let's not forget that McCain has such high regard for his nation – Country First! -- that he actually talked to Palin twice before naming her!

Slicing this up and looking at it from every angle, this is a Blunder of Katrina Proportions for McCain – Hillary voters are going to run screaming from Palin once they get a gander at her ultra-conservative Buchananite record, independents will sensibly go "WTF?" and Bible-literalist Christopublicans won't cotton to a wife who wears the New Age pants in the family, as Sarah apparently does. (Some of them may even impute scary lesbianism to her Great White North tomboy lifestyle.)

It might be recalled, incidentally, that Dayton, Ohio, is the home of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, the alleged location of Hangar 18 where, so the legend goes, the dead bodies of space aliens and other flying saucer detritus from the notorious 1947 Roswell, NM, UFO crash were taken.

What an appropriate location for McCain to announce this peculiar VP choice (cue The Twilight Zone theme).

This year, you can spell defeat 'McCain-Palin '08.'

And here's a test question: Which character from The Simpsons do you think Palin sounds more like: Edna Krabappel the schoolteacher, or Ned Flanders' wife Maude?

BTW, NateW [August 30th, 2008 12:56 pm], as Madcow notes, the PUMAs were started and are funded by Republicans.

mujeriego [August 30th, 2008 1:28 pm], as Lindsey Graham said the other day, Sarah will be out at 3:am hunting moose.

Please Democrats WAKE UP AND SMELL THE RED HERRING!!!

McCain has NO intention of sticking it out with PALIN!

She is a red herring to draw Demo attacks on inexperience, women, no foreign policy experience! All the things Barack Obama will be attacked with their own words.

PALIN will bow out under incredible pressure from the media scrutiny and with timely help from the RNC/McCain.

The replacement? Lindsay Graham? Lieberman? or some neocon crazy?

It will happen (and must happen) in less than a week...before the ticket is officially nominated at the convention.

The BEST APPROACH for demos? Remain silent on Palin.

You Decide

I always liked Sally Fields as the Flying Nun. She'll be even better as a hockey mom VP.

Michael Moore's comment on Olberman hit the nail on the head: do the Repubs think woman are THAT DUMB? The women I know aren't falling for this stunt. I doubt many others will. Unless women in the US are in fact that dumb.

PS---As we know already the MSM are going to carry Grandpa McCain all the way to November. Till then they will tell us how "close and exciting" it all is. If Obama and McCain are within 5 points of each other, then NADER is going to be the decider once again (he polls at EIGHT percent in New Mexico, SEVEN percent in the crucial state PA, and at least SIX percent nationally---no doubt growing every day). Let Nader, then, give Obama-the-compromiser the sweats all the way to the wire....

NOT ONE, YOUR WRONG AND LET ME TELL YOU WHY: Yes I am troubled by Obama and Biden's obvious corporatism. And I have no illusion us progressives will be disappointed. I was dissappointed over corporate democrat Bill Clinton.

BUT this election is not about progressive change, though I wish it were. This election is about slowing down the march toward corporate fascism for (hopefully) a decade. Not to mention the Supreme Court. Even I can't complain about Clinton's choice of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I know I will be dissappointed with Obama if he wins, but I do believe he will nominate Supreme Court candidates who will not be a rubber stamp for a right wing imperial presidency.

Between a right-wing fascist President and a gutless rubber-stamp corporate democratic congress, the Supreme court is the only institution that isn't afraid to act that isn't totally right-wing. It is the only institution that confronted Bush over Gitmo and therefor preserved somewhat the rights of detainees (and therefor ourselves).

NOT ONE: for these reasons, you must vote Obama.

In my opinion Obama has already whored too much of himself to the so-called "center" (meaning right) for me to vote for him. And Biden, the senator from MasterCard, always struck me as just another clownish insider who has a full share of the mess we're in on his weak shoulders. Yet, while I know Biden will clobber Ms. Palin in debates, it won't matter---any more than in mattered that Kerry clobbered the stammering Bush three times. The GOP psychopaths believe in their delusions and as long as there's a "GOP" on your forehead, sure go ahead you can sit in the big chair. As Nader says, they are all sock-puppets for the well-hidden criminals who really run the Empire....

I would vote for Nader, but I don't want to die yet.

Given the fact that she supports shooting bears and wolves from the air maybe a good strategy would be to make her unlikable. A creep.

The gun idiots will support her no matter what given how irrational they are but if she doesnt pass a likability test it would help swing some simple minded voters.

Obama carries baggage with a very dull VP however.

I wish people would stop this knee-jerk reaction of assuming that an elite law school degree automatically predicts a person is not progressive enough or has automatically "sold out."

Ralph Nader is a Harvard Law School graduate, too, if I remember correctly.

As Obama states in his first book, he (Obama) was a South Side Chicago organizer who decided that a law degree would help him be more effective in his work on the South Side, and who went to Harvard Law to "bring back Promethian fire."

Granted, though, that his telcom vote was troubling. We will need to organize and continue to hold him accountable after he is elected.