Louise:

Actually, while it is true that Paul did not openly support the Kucinich resolution, he actually called for Bush’s impeachment LONG before Kucinich did.  Here are a couple of links:

http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/32d05495-244f-42cd- b2b0-19244ae46418

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/030306b ushimpeachment.htm

Peace.

#124758 by Maani on 1/06 at 8:12 pm

“Louise:

Didn’t realize you were also a 9/11 Truther.  So why aren’t you supporting Ron Paul, who is the ONLY candidate calling for a new, thorough, non-political investigation into 9/11 - including following ALL evidence and seeing where it leads, come what may?”

***

Short answer:
Because he is a republican.

Long answer:
Because he has never called for impeachment, and he certainly could join Kucinich and Wexler in calling for Impeachment if he wanted. Which tells me, for all his good points he still wants to stay in the republican camp.

However, I just ran across a news item that pointed out Paul had said if he wasn’t elected it would be up to all those supporters who have given him so many millions what to do. Perhaps they will demand he run as an independent! Who knows?

If we get down to the wire and my only choice is between Clinton and/or ANY republican, I might vote for an Independent Paul. Unless Kucinich runs as an Independent, of course.

Sue:

Brava!  Will you marry me?  LOL.

Peace.

MMC:

“Obama is a real change.” What on God’s great earth does that MEAN?  WHAT “change?” What will Obama actually DO - indeed, what CAN Obama actually do - differently from Hillary AS PRESIDENT?  How will he govern differently?  How much change does - CAN - ANY president actually effect per se?

Are ANY of the Obama supporters on this thread actually LISTENING to themselves?  Or are you so caught up in the thrill of the moment that you don’t realize what a HUGE letdown an Obama presidency is likely to be.  Remember, the higher the expectations, the greater the disappointments.

Sue is 101% correct: if he had waited his turn, he would have been a shoo-in in 2016, which would have meant having the first woman president and the first black president back-to-back.  Instead, he literally betrayed Hillary - his mentor - by NOT waiting, and challenging her after less than a full term in the Senate.  Indeed, Obama’s betrayal of Hillary is unquestionably among the LEAST principled things any neophyte politician has ever done to a mentor.

Peace.

Expat:

You hit the nail on the head when you say “When one is at the bottom everything looks like up.”

Without discounting his character, admirability and convictions, this is why a candidacy like Obama’s - which is largely smoke and mirrors - is so successful right now.  The reality is that Hillary DOES represent “change”; at least as much change as is desperately needed vis-a-vis Bush/Cheney.  It is just that Obama’s relative “newness,” youthfulness and charisma SEEM to represent even GREATER change.

But, as I have pointed out, that is simply not the case - at least not NEARLY to the degree people are hoping and expecting.  Indeed, it is likely that an Obama presidency would ultimately be a HUGE letdown for his supporters when they find that NO president can “change everything,” or even magically the system, much less the world.

In other words, as you suggest, we are in such a serious trough of trust in government and politics vis-a-vis the national (global!) nightmare of Bush-Cheney that a young, charismatic, even evangelistic, JFK-like candidate who talks - unrealistically, no matter how well-intentioned - about “change” and “hope” and “turning the page” - but will NOT be able to deliver on these (except perhaps minimally) seems so much more attractive than a pragmatic, realistic candidate who has more experience, and will be able to deliver as much change as ANY candidate is likely to be able to.

Peace.

By Maani, January 7 at 7:25 am #
(26 comments total)

Troublesum:You mean, unlike all the

He’s black (the difference)?  Maani of course your right.  At this point in time I don’t really know where I stand.  You bring some very good points to this forum: I only know one thing for sure; I will not suffer one more year of fascist shit from cretins like Bush/Cheney.  When one is at the bottom everything looks like up.  Our real problem is our not realizing we really do have the power to change things, but, we have been bullshitted/scared out of believing we do have the choices and the ability to bring change.  I don’t care what color a candidate is; I only care about their agenda!

Troublesum:

You mean, unlike all the power-loving, politically ambitious and aggressive MEN who have been president since Day 1 - and have screwed up this country royally?

And why, pray tell, is it “twisted” for a woman to seek power but not a man?  Methinks your sexism is showing.

Hillary is no more or less politically ambitious and “aggressive” than male politicians.  And since it is the nature of politics to be so - i.e., one HAS to be “ambitious” and “aggressive” in order to run for political office - I don’t see why everyone is holding this against her.

The only real, substantive question is: what are her positions, what are her strengths and weaknesses as a politician, and how will those positions, strengths and weaknesses serve her as president?  To my mind, she is no worse than anyone else running - including Obama - and better than many.

When are all of the Obama-ites going to wake up, smell the coffee, take off their blinders, and see the practical realities that (i) his positions on all major issues are virtually identical to Hillary’s, (ii) his advisors are as entrenched in party politics as Hillary’s, (iii) his voting record is virtually identical to Hillary’s, except for all those NVs, (iv) he is as “bought and paid for” by corporate America as is Hillary, and (v) a president CANNOT “change everything,” no matter how noble the idea, and yet (a) his tenure in the Senate is a full term shorter than Hillary’s, (b) he does not have NEARLY the foreign policy knowledge, experience and relationships that Hillary does, and (c) as one of the articles I posted says, “Mr. Obama says, “I am the change!” Change to what, we ask?  Mr. Obama says, “Turn the page!” Turn to what page from what book, we ask?  Mr. Obama says, “Hope we can believe in!” Hope for what, we ask? The siren song remains the same - a lot of smoke and mirrors and no ideas.”

I ask the Obama-ites here to answer that: EXACTLY what IDEAS has Obama articulated - clearly - with regard to “change,” “turning the page,” and “hope?” What does he mean by that?  How is he, ultimately, THAT much different from Hillary?  How will he govern any differently?  Does he expect Congress to simply roll over because of his charm and good looks?  Does he expect world leaders to do so?

Peace.

Don’t put words in my mouth, you sound like a follower of the decider - My Hillary right or wrong.

Maybe those pictures of Bill and George senior playing golf together weren’t such a good idea after all.

Ann Richards… Barbara Boxer… Maxine Waters

that a capable woman who was not power-hungry would not be a good candidate.  Wanting power for the sake of power is twisted for a woman.

Eva Peron… Indira Ghandi.... Margaret Thatcher…

A power loving, politically ambitious, and agressive woman is an abomination and everybody knows it.

CY:

You anti-Hillary types really hate being proven wrong, don’t you?  One of you harps on Hillary’s support of bankruptcy reform; yet when I point out that she did not vote for it, you turn around and accuse her of missing the vote because she was out raising money for herself.  Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t, huh?  That is what is usually called “dirty politics” (to say nothing of “sour grapes"). Shame on you.

As well, bringing up a politician who died over 40 years ago as a comparison to those currently in the Senate is absurd, even by your standards.  I’m sure we can find plenty of former (and dead) politicians whose voting records were worse, or filled with more “NV"s, than Obama’s.  But you are simply trying to weasel out of my point.  Nice try.

G. Anderson:

Thank you for pointing out that Hillary supported Kucinich’s resolution for impeachment.  I hope that increases her “stature” in your eyes at least a tad...LOL.

Louise:

Didn’t realize you were also a 9/11 Truther.  So why aren’t you supporting Ron Paul, who is the ONLY candidate calling for a new, thorough, non-political investigation into 9/11 - including following ALL evidence and seeing where it leads, come what may?

Expat:

As noted, I agree with the concern over the restoration of lost civil liberties, freedoms and privacy.  Hillary has mentioned it twice that I know of, though I will understand if many people feel it was only lip service (remains to be seen).  Still, I’d like to hear Obama and Edwards on this, as well as the others.  As you suggest, it is actually an incredibly critical issue for restoring trust and (dare I say it?) faith in our goverment.

Peace.

Maani, thanks for the links. They tend to confirm my fears.  Previously, I didn’t mention Edwards because I think he’s already gone.  At this point he’s probably the best still standing; but for how long (standing)?  I’m pretty pessimistic obviously.

Golly whiz CY!
Thanks!

Reminds me of the “man in the street” who magically appeared before FOX news the morning of 9/11 to explain to them [and an “in shock” nation] what actually just happened. Spewing forth an obvious well-rehearsed schpill, he accomplished what he was put there to accomplish.

To PLANT disinformation!

Now why do people want to do that?

For fun?

I don’t think so ... nobody lies on national TV unless there’s something in it for them.

[even if it’s only a pat on the back from a favored influentual]

Anyhow, thanks for verifying something I had been suspecting.

There were only 3 candidates who actually had massive amounts of experience and the ethics to match; Kucinich, Paul and Gravel.  They are history and we are left with Hillary and Obama.  Both mainstream and beholden; yes they are “democrats”, but just what does that mean for us?  The Bush administration has abused and stolen many things from us and my question is; will the dems give it all back or keep these new powers for their own objectives.  I for one don’t trust they will return our Constitution and Bill of Rights intact.  This is where I’m being asked to trust too much; so, we may be finally screwed.  You’ll have to pardon my cynicism; I have worked on it for 8 years and it’s not easily put away.

A couple of items for your consideration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/opinion/06kinsley.ht ml?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2008/01/05/oba ma-mr-opportunity-return-of-the-hollow-man/

Peace.

Hillary voted yes on HR 333

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Hillary_Clinton_Corp orations.htm

If you like NAFTA, you’ll love Hillary.

“What does being a corporate lawyer have to do with anything?”

She is running on her experience.  Much of that has been as a shill for ruling class interests—corporate lawyer, Wal-Mart board member, NAFTA supporter, and so on.  It is a seemless web.

G. Anderson:

Mere repetition of something does not make it fact: Hillary did NOT vote for bankruptcy reform.  (For her voting record, go to http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463.  For Obama’s voting record, go to http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490).  As an aside, almost every Democrat voted for NAFTA, including Edwards.

As for “She was more interested in trying to convince the people she was tough enough to be President than take a stand,” you willfully ignore my point that, in fact, she has taken a stand on FAR more issues/votes than Obama, who was either absent or voted “NV” more times than almost any senator. THAT is called “not taking a stand.”

Hillary “unstable?” Where is THIS coming from?  She is, if anything, TOO stable in some regards (which is one reason many people have a problem with her). Her increasingly superb ability to handle the right, and whatever it throws at her, shows a stability that Obama clearly lacks, given HIS INability to handle even some of the campaign tactics of others in his own party.  As noted, a right-controlled campaign (particularly behind Giuliani) would CLOBBER Obama.

Dr. KIA:

Thanks for the support.  I agree: people hear what they want to hear, or get caught up in the heat of the moment, and simply don’t do their homework to check the facts.  (Look how many false statistics and outright lies Giuliani has provided ALREADY, yet those who support him simply ignore them.) This is why much of the electorate in this country has become increasingly ignorant: they let the media and campaign strategists do their thinking for them.

I also agree with your lengthier general post ("I doubt there’s any knight.")

Blackspeare:

Re Albright, are you also ignoring the facts?  As noted, most of Obama’s advisors are ex-Clintonites (the rest are ex-Daschle-ites), ALL of whom are just as “entrenched” in “party politics” as Clinton’s team.  Besides, the presumption that Albright would be a part of a Clinton Cabinet etc. is just that: a presumption, without any basis.  She may just be a visible supporter.

troublesum:

Excuse me?  I think you have your parties confused.  It is the Republicans who want to privatize or otherwise get rid of social security; the Democrats have been fairly unified in their fight to keep it just the way it is.

That said, you make an excellent point about Bush, Cheney & Co.  If there has been little talk of undoing the erosion of civil liberties, freedoms and privacy under Bush & Co., there has been no talk at all of holding Bush & Co. accountable for how they have shredded the Constitution.  (Although Kucinich et al did introduce a resolution for impeachment of Cheney, which unfortunately went exactly nowhere.) That would be a great question for all the candidates; I’d very much like to hear Clinton, Obama and Edwards on that issue.

Peace.

Hitorically democrats have been a greater war party than republicans, so there is little hope for peace if democrats win in November.  The first item on their agenda may be to get rid of social security.  Second, they will protect Bush and Cheney from having to answer for abuse of power during their two terms in power.  Cowardice should not be rewarded by too large a mandate

Thanks, Maani.  I wonder if people sometimes hear what they expect or want to hear.  As a Hillary non-fan, I was indeed impressed with her substance and her feistiness last night and now I’m thinking she might be the right one.  She can hold her own with any man and that is important in this world.

I like to believe she’s for the average American.

I think they pissed her off about the experience and change thing.  I found her anger a positive thing. (I am a hetero male, BTW)

The Repubs spent most of their time either attacking Mitt or continuing the demagogic agenda of Jihad and Islamo-Fascist Muslim Extremeists.  (I found one hiding in my closet the other day.)

Give me a F*****G Break. 

I agree, the economy is the issue.  Dems know that, which may be why they didn’t stay on the nukkuler thing too long.

I doubt there’s any knight in shining armor coming to the rescue of disenchanted voters; it’s going to be one of the current candidates. 

Their small differences aside, this is a great opportunity for America and the democrats.  We could likely have either the first female or the first black president.  This is huge.

Probably most important, 2009 can mark the end of 8 horrific years in American history and, possibly, the end of the conservative/religious right strangle-hold on American government.

What dems need to focus on is completing the job of winning the WH, keeping a congressional majority and ensuring their longevity in gov. by formulating and promoting the people’s agenda, getting out of and staying out of war and repairing our country and its government and restoring our constitution.

As for Hillary, even though I’m not a fan, she’s very bright, knows foreign policy, knows how Washington works, is highly experienced, takes initiative and is quick on her feet.  And she’s not a Republican.

No matter who is the nominee, it’ll be a win-win for democrats and the middle class if the dems do the right thing and it can be for a very long time, eight years or even sixteen.  I find the prospect, as an ordinary working class American, refreshingly exciting and exhillarating. 

George Bush may have succeeded in dismantling and destroying the Republican Party.  What a good little boy!!!! It makes me feel good about his gov. pension. (Check out the Comment#!! That should be worth a Prius!)

No that’s not what happened at all.

They hit her nerve’s and she almost lost it completely in an angry outburst, which she barely controlled.

Yes it hurts her feelings that she’s not liked enough, that was truthful, and demonstrates quite clearly wants to be president for the wrong reasons.

Hey Dr. Dr.----

I must have watch a different debate.  Hillary was a bit glum at the beginning and lacked the luster needed for a viable candidate and sounded kind of shrill in some of her responses.  On the other hand Obama gave measured responses that resonate with the silent majority as did Edwards.  Don’t be surprised if Obama and Edwards team up on a ticket!  Also, the opening gambit of nuclear security in the Democratic debate was a waste----too bad Rudy wasn’t there!  The main issue will be the economy not security.  With a recession looming, security will be at the bottom of the list.

Personally, I did like Hillary, but she has fallen off the mark and when I saw Madeline Albright standing behind her during her remarks after the Iowa caucuses I knew it was all over----who wants that old fossil in another administration.  I’m afraid with Hillary it will the same old politicking!

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a president who didn’t have emotional issues?

She voted for bankrupcy reform, and she has supported Bush in his war efforts, giving him everything he wanted with barely a whimper. Not to mention NAFTA.

Her life of privledge makes her clueless when it comes to understanding working people of this country. There’s a difference between living a life of privledge and having money. 

Hillary’s candidacy is not not the lesser of two evils at all, she’s as unstable as Bush is. When she touts herself as being practical, realistic and experienced, she’s only saying she has deciced to cave to the plutocracy. Her compromises would make any successes she might have meaningless. 

There’s an asymetric relationship between truth and experience, decades of belief can be erased by only one verifiable event, just as Hillary’s experience is nullified by her support of the war. She was more interested in trying to convince the people she was tought enough to be President than take a stand.

Kerry’s loss was more about the fact that he was a Democratic Party Selection, and the fact remains that his life of privledge made him clueless about the issues. If Clinton is “selected” she’ll be another Kerry.

According to the daily Zogby tracking polls Clinton’s 12 point lead in NH has evaporated.  This morning they are showing Hillary 31, Obama 30, Edwards 20.

G. Anderson:

Do your homework.  While it is true that Hillary voted “for the Iraq war” (a misnomer), neither Obama nor Hillary supported bankruptcy reform.  As for NAFTA and credit card reform, Obama was not in the Senate when those were voted on, so we simply do not know how he might have voted.  Hillary, however, did NOT support credit card reform.

As well, BOTH of them voted FOR the 4/26/07 bill providing additional funding for the war (with a timeline withdrawal provision).

Finally, it might interest you to know that Obama has among the worst “NV” (no vote) records in the entire Senate; i.e., while Hillary may vote wrongly on some issues, at least she takes a stand.  Obama, on the other hand, either doesn’t attend the voting (and what does THAT say about him?) or simply refuses to take a stand on many issues.  This does not exactly show alot of “backbone” re his alleged principledness.

As for a “life of privilege,” every candidate is a millionaire and lives a “life of privilege” compared to the average Joe (or Jane).  So what?

Louise:

Re Clinton v Kerry vis-a-vis the right, you forget that Kerry put himself in that position by wanting to have it both ways: he was a war hero, but he was against the war.  Both were true, of course, but the right used the confusion around it to create the “swift boat” campaign.  They will have no such opportunity with Hillary: the only “flip-flop” they can really point to is her vote “for the war” (as noted, a misnomer); however, that has aleady been beaten to death in the media, so most people will not care.  As an aside, Obama would be absolutely CLOBBERED by a right-controlled Giuliani campaign.

Re Kucinich, I like him too.  (I like Ron Paul almost as much; he’s the only one calling for a completely new, thorough, non-political, non-partisan investigation into 9/11, as well as a repeal of the (illegal) income tax.) However, while I am all for the “principled” vote, that is what got us Bush (okay, it was a combination of Nader, the denouement of Gore’s campaign, and the stealing of the Florida election).

We cannot afford to “split the vote” this time; i.e., this is one election in which the “lesser of two evils” (since that is how many people will see a Hillary candidacy) is worth voting for, just to make sure the Republican (especially if it’s Giuliani!) doesn’t win (by any means other than voting chicanery...)

Dr. KIA:

I agree re the debates - and I knew it would happen.  Clinton has SO much more foreign policy experience than (and equal or more domestic policy experience as) Obama, which is why she sounded so much more grounded and “poised,” and why he sounded a bit lackluster.

Obama’s “rock star” moment may already be fading. We’ll see after the New Hampshire vote.

Peace.

Did you see the NH debate?  I’m not a Hillary fan but, IMO, she blew the good ole boys away.  She was poised, she answered the questions, she stayed on subject and she was specific.  Politically, it was a pretty masterful performance and seems to illustrate that she may have what it takes to exploit a majority congress to get the job done.  What that job will be, of course, remains to be seen. 

Obama apparently doesn’t have what it takes to capitalize on Iowa momentum.  He acted kind of dead in the water.

Edwards was a little emotional.

Richardson talked a lot, said little.

Manny:
They ran as a team: “If you vote for him, you get me.” Who was it who said that?  They had two terms.  Move on.  There is a feeling of inevitability about Obama.  She won’t know what hit her.  It’s all over but the divorse.  I do not have a “visceral hatred” of the Clintons or anyone else.  There’s nothing about them to hate; just a hell of a lot to be sick and tired of.  This country needs new leadership.

Once again;

Believe it or not, I agree with almost everything you say. For clarification, PLEASE read the posts I linked before, entirely. Because I have no wish to engage in my man Obama is better than your woman Hillary.

My man is KUCINICH!

And I still believe since Hillary was “selected” as the possible/probable candidate by MSM and the GOP pundits long before any of this began, they have an attack campaign prepared and ready to unleash, and it will make the Kerry attack look like Childs play!

Whether or not Hillary can take it is not the issue. Whether or not the people can take it is what counts. Kerry supporters were vocal and informed and constantly called on to defend Kerry. But because Kerry kind of just let it roll off his back we were all fighting an up-hill battle! Because those who chose to believe the lies saw Kerry’s “strength” [not jumping to his own defense, and expressing outrage] as an admission to the charges. And it didn’t help that the media kept repeating the lies, without challenging them.

And why didn’t they?

Because Kerry was not the selected one. The whole thing was a SHAM to keep us from looking under the GOP’s dirty bed, where they were busy fixing the outcome! And because still, to this day most everyone ... particularly the media, most especially the candidates ... refuse to even talk about the WELL DOCUMENTED fraud that went into keeping the bush in the White House, there is no reason for the cheats to believe they can’t do it again.

The attack is essential to the cheater. Because it gives COVER to the fraud!

Just like right now!

We are all so busy arguing about Obama and Edwards and Clinton, that nobody’s noticed the “deceiver guy” has VETOED the fiscal 2008 Defense Authorization Act!

*******

Army Bonus Payments Frozen By Bush!

“The Army has temporarily halted bonus payments for more than 20 enlistment, re-enlistment and service extension programs pending enactment of authorizing legislation. President Bush, to the surprise of Congress and the Defense Department, vetoed the fiscal 2008 Defense Authorization Act on Dec. 29 after months bargaining with House and Senate leaders.”
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=5160

*******

What a contemptible little man ... This news report should be headed:

“Bush puts loaded gun to soldiers head, threatens to pull trigger if Congress doesn’t do as he says quick!”

But, if it turns out Hillary is the ONLY candidate on the final ballot who IS NOT a republican, I’ll work and fight and defend to get her elected, just like I did for Kerry! But my hope is that wont be the case, or that there will be a third option, because I don’t think we could take another offense from all fronts like we did the morning Kerry caved!

There is a way we can come closer to assuring a new Democrat president who really wants change has a fighting chance of bringing it about. Replace EVERY incumbent congressaur running for re-election this cycle with a brand new dem, except those who have demonstrated they have the guts to stand up to Bush and demand accountability, and end the WAR. And there are a few!

We’ve had years of “experienced folks” running things and look at the fine mess those “experienced folks” have created for us!

“Atrocity-Linked U.S. Officials Advising Democratic, GOP Presidential Frontrunners”

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_a trocity_linked_us

She can “regroup” all she likes, it will not change the fact that she is no different than Giuliani in the sense that she has absolutely no chance of winning the general election, this will be clear after she fails to win even one state primary.

P.T.

What does being a corporate lawyer have to do with anything?  Franklin Roosevelt was a corporate lawyer.  So were most presidents, including those you would probably say you liked.

Louise:

Re “old guard” versus “new,” have you actually taken a look at who Obama’s advisors are?  Half are ex-Clintonites!  (The other half are ex-Daschle-ites.) And ALL of them are “entrenched” Democrats of the party variety.  So what exactly is the big difference here between Obama and Hillary?

As well, their positions on three of the biggest issues - Iraq, health care and climate change - are virtually identical.  So what exactly is the big difference HERE?

Also, what is being forgotten in the heat of Obama’s “rock star” moment is that while his message is wonderful and uplifting, a president CANNOT “change everything” by sheer dint of will or personality; there is a Congress to deal with, among other things. (Just look at what is happening to NY governor Elliot Spitzer, whose campaign slogan was “On Day 1, everything changes.")

This is why Hillary is right when she says that Obama is “peddling false hopes.” It’s not that she doesn’t feel that Obama has an uplifting message (after all, she was his mentor until he “turned” on her...) It’s just that she knows it is hopelessly unrealistic (given the realities of Washington) - and Hillary is nothing if not a pragmatist (arguably too much so, for some people).

Finally, I still disagree with you re who would weather the GOP assault during the presidential campaign.  Hillary has taken everything the right has thrown at her (which is ALOT!) and either let it roll off her back, replied with humor (often ironic and biting), or responded in kind.  Obama is untested here and, as noted, despite his seeming “innocence,” may well have skeletons in his closet of which we are unaware - and which the right will absolutely use to its advantage.  As well, he “bristles” quickly, and has not even handled the INTRA-party “attacks” very well.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m sure he has great strength of character.  But that does not necessarily equate with an ability to handle the kind of negativity, harassment, smearing and other tactics the right will undoubtedly use.

Peace.

Obama may turn out to be a status quo guy, but he is able to raise large amounts of money from small donors—and he is no corporate lawyer.

Dude, Obama may turn out to be a status quo guy, but he is able to raise large amounts of money from small donors—and he is no corporate lawyer.

At this point I’m hoping she’ll just go away quietly, and save us another media driven autopsy, over what went wrong.

I don’t believe that Hillary, who currently lives a life of privledge, understands the agonies that the American people are going through, because she supported many, if not all of those political measures that Mr. Bush put through, the Iraq War, credit card reform, bankrupcy reform, and NAFTA.

And it’s my percerption that she continues to support and benefit from Mr. Bush’s agenda, and is not about to change things, no matter how much lip service she gives to the idea. She represents the plutocracy.

Up until now it hasn’t made much of a differnce, which party is supposed to be in charge, the plutocracy has continued to march forward.

Unfortunately for them all, the people in this country are in great distress, 800,000 forclosures, tent cities, record bankrupcies, their children killed in Iraq.

And who is the cause of all our misfortune?

Dude, check out Obama’s donors: major funding from DC lobbyists.  Even the “change” candidate is the corporate status quo.

Believe it or not, I agree with almost everything you say. For clarification, please read the posts I linked, entirely.

The one exception I take is “Hillary has the best chance of with-standing the GOP assault.”

Personally I think the exact opposite is true, since Hillary was “selected” as the possible/probable candidate by MSM and the GOP pundits long before any of this began. That tells me they have an attack campaign prepared and ready to unleash, and it will make the Kerry attack look like Childs play! My view is that’s exactly why MSM pushed for Kerry. Of all the candidates, he offered the best fodder for attack!

I also am concerned by her choices of advisors. All from the “Old Guard” and like most everybody else, I’m not to thrilled with the prospect of a return to “old guard” policies. Because, as bad as the current crop is, their predecessors paved the way. We need a complete clean sweep! The same could be said for the choices among most of the other candidates.

I may be old, but I am definitely ready for something new. Particularly a new perspective, a new vision, and a new courage. At least new when compared with the administrations and advisors of the past two plus decades!

All those old phogies need to go away! They had their chance, and we are all living with the outcome!

In any case, I’m voting for Kucinich. I want an honest man in the Oval office!

Awhile back I was admiring Hillary for what I perceived as someone with a more compassionate view of things in general.  But after observing her tactics and demeanor it appears its the same old same old.

So please don’t tell Mama I’m for Obama.

troublesum:

Hillary has never been disbarred for lying under oath.  Hillary has never been accused of rape.  It was not Hillary’s $3 million defense bill.  “The Clintons” did NOT have two terms; Bill did.

Your visceral hatred of the Clintons is getting in the way of your reason - to say nothing of the facts.

P.T.:

Obama is no less a corporate Democrat than Clinton, if by that you mean “bought and paid” for.  Have you looked at the contributor list to Obama’s campaign?  There are just as many corporations, bundlers and 527s as there are for Clinton.

PulSamsara:

Bill is not “appointing” Hillary, so there is no nepotism.  As for experience, Hillary has it all over Obama.  Even setting aside her presence in the White House for eight years - and one cannot help but get at least SOME experience from that - she has been a senator longer, and has so much more foreign policy knowledge and experience than Obama that it is almost funny.

Louise:

Obama’s and Hillary’s plans for Iraq are virtually identical.  Only Edwards is calling for complete withdrawal within 10-12 months.  (Richardson is calling for complete withdrawal immediately.)

As well, I have not heard one word from Obama’s mouth about his plans for reversing the assaults on and erosions of our freedoms, civil liberties and privacy - certainly no more than Clinton, who has in fact addressed the issue quiet publicly more than once.

I hate the entire political system as much as anyone here.  And I dislike Hillary’s triangulations as much as anyone here.  However, I cannot help but agree that she is more qualified to “hit the ground running” as president than Obama.  For example, she already knows almost all the major leaders of the world, and would not need to “start from scratch” in creating relationships.  That is not an insignifcant thing.  (And it is by no means the only one.)

As important if not moreso, I cannot also help but agree that Hillary is FAR better suited to handle what will almost certainly be the most negative, vicious campaign the Republicans have ever launched against a Democratic candidate.  As one pundit said, all the skeletons in her closet have aleady been dragged heavily and publicly through the mud; there are unlikely to be any new ones that the GOP can use against her.  However, for all his seeming innocence, Obama is a neophyte in this regard, and we simply do not know what the GOP might find and use against him - successfully.  As well, given some of his “reactions” to intra-party campaigning, I am not sanguine that he will react well, or helpfully, to GOP attacks.

If we want the GOP out of the White House - under any circumstance - Hillary has the best chance of withstanding the GOP assault.  I like Obama alot.  And if he does not ultimately win the nomination, he is a virtual shoo-in in 2016.

Peace.

“Iowa doesn’t have the best track record in determining who the party nominates”

***

On that I have to agree with Hillary. And there is a real negative in the Iowa Caucuses. The notion that if you don’t place there, your out of the race. Already that invalid premise has caused two, to fall out!

So once again, the media wins. The people lose. And why do we have this horse race anyway?

The memory I cant shake from Hillary’s remarks Friday night ... her forceful words about how important it is to remember, she is the strongest candidate on the TWO MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES ...

STAYING POWER and ELECTABILITY.

Well they may be the two most important issues for her, but they don’t do squat for me!

I thought maybe the two most important issues were the WAR and the ABUSE of our Constitution!

Or torture. Or a collapsing economy. Or a falling dollar. Or 40 plus million people who cant get health insurance. Or hundreds of thousands of homeless people. Or thousands of kids going to bed hungry every night. Or tax cuts for the wealthy. Or borrowing from a communist nation to finance a losing war. Or ... well that’s already a heck of a lot more than two.

Hillary’s priorities are strange. So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by anything that comes out of her campaign in the next few days.

If you haven’t yet, read:

“It’s the War,” Says Iowa to Hillary—And a “Happy Blue Year” To All! ... from Michael Moore
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=221

“Friends,

There was no doubt about it. The message from Iowa tonight was simple, but deafening:

If you’re a candidate for President, and you voted for the war, you lose. And if you voted and voted and voted for the war—and never once showed any remorse—you really lose.

In short, if you had something to do with keeping us in this war for four-plus years, you are not allowed to be the next president of the United States.”

***

While you’re at it, check out:

Who Do We Vote For This Time Around?
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?me ssageDate=2008-01-02

“I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I’m not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his “authorization” to invade—I’m talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush’s illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn’t like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March—four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America’s worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was “misled” by “faulty intelligence.”

Pennies from heaven.

She means that she’s laid out $20 million so far in the campaign and she wants some change back.

There is a disconnect in Hillary Clinton’s message:  a corporate Democrat calling for change?

This is not a banana republic yet.  The constitution limits the president to two four year terms.  The Clintons had their two terms.  Move on.

Rush Limbaugh said Hillary was smiling at the “victory” speech but wondered who she threw the marble lamps and ashtrays at back in the hotel suite.
Obama is the first charismatic candidate since Jack and Bobby Kennedy and Hillary will be hit by the Obama juggernaut.  She will not be able to stop it with any amount of money or negative campaigning.  Obama has never been disbarred for lying under oath.  He has never been accused of rape.  Never had a $3 million legal defense bill to pay.  If the Clintons try to throw dirt on him it will end up on their own faces.