When the air is let out of the stock market, which in my judgement will happen, and then the possibility of equality may return. To much power in the market to have change take place.

#107494 by herdpoisoning

Heardpoisoning,

I do get you. (and the point of your first message). And, you’re right, Kucinich is constantly overlooked as the best person for the job. But, we just may be able to work a surprise on them. At least if people are actually paying any sort of attention.

Thanks CY (#107517). I’m not sure about the media, and if we’ll ever get it back. On the positive side, even 5 years ago, we didn’t have the access to alternative media that we have now. (such as TD and multiple other independent media sources). So, that was a positive (at least for me) when they began sprouting up.

Thing is, by now....it seems like we’re constantly needing to catch-up behind the disinformation heard. What’s the old cliche - “A lie can get half-way around the world before the Truth gets his pants on?”

It seems to be the case here...in these times.

When I first read this I thought you said, ruining yesterdays ideas.

I thought it would be an article about how orthodoxy, has ruined America’s Democracy, and how the election process has become so much like the products we consume.

Pretty packaging but empty inside.

At this point it’s anyones guess what we’re going to get after we buy the box, and shake it out into our bowl.

#107396

Even before the candidates are out of the gate they have been put into ‘tiers.’ Top or first tier Hillary and Obama.  Second tier everybody else.  Based on?  Who knows.  Who sets it up?  Who knows. (I suspect big media sets it up based on who can bring them big money.) Kucinich and the rest can’t even get into the gate let alone have a chance to run the race.  It’s a deplorable practice that must be stopped.

My point is not that I am afraid of a woman in the white house.  My point was to counter the common argument that Kucinich is “unelectable” because he is short and not pretty to look at.  And if it were not for riding her husband’s coattails, do you think the DLC would be so quick to annoint her Queen?  If we had a woman who showed integrity and backbone running, rather than just opportunism, I would be behind her entirely. 
If you do not think that I have a case for Hillary running on Bill’s coattails, explain why she never held public office until AFTER bill had been president.
Now , for example, if Amy Goodman, who has spent years proving her integrity, were to run, then I would back her 100%. The problem with Hillary is not that she is a woman, but that she is pro-war, anti-gay equality, pro-corporate, and, like the rest of the dems (except Kucinich) was born rich, so has no idea the kinds of economic hardships most americans face at some point in their life. 
The only reason I compared the potential first ladies, as should have been obvious from the context preceding the comment about them, is that the most commonly used argument against treating Kucinich as a viable candidate is that he is short and “gnomish” looking.  as if this somehow negates the fact that he is the only candidate on the slate that seems to have actually thought about the issues, rather than listening to focus groups and moneyed interests.
I suspect you understood the context there, but chose to pull that part of the comment out of context in order to try to discredit the rest of what was said.

#107396 by herdpoisoning on 10/16 at 12:55 am: “...Besides, his wife more than makes up for any denigration of his appearance.  Honestly, who would you rather be seen as first lady, Mrs Kucinich or Mr Clinton...?”

What an utterly dumb statement! Has it occurred to you that HILLARY is running for president, not BILL? No, apparently not, uhh. I think it really frightens some people that there will be a man in the White House who is not president. Well, he’s been there before so it shouldn’t upset you. Or do you see him as a “trophy” wife??? Get over it!

Why is it that this article mentions the longshots in the GOP ranks, whilst ignoring the truly progressive candidates in the Democratic primary, devoting it’s entire summary of the Democratic offerings to the DLC’s Queen Hillary and Crown Prince Obama.  Hillary’s “anti-war rhetoric” is not even offset with a reminder that she voted for the current war in Iraq and has never admitted that it was a bad idea to do so.  Kucinich has more experiance in public service than either of them, and has come out with more rational points than either of them, yet this article neglects to even mention him.  His supposed “unlectability” has yet again become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  He is “too radical” but every time his views and voting record get discussed, most people agree with him. It is said that he is “too short” or “not pretty enough” to be elected, as if these were somehow factors that should have any real consideration.  Besides, his wife more than makes up for any denigration of his appearance.  Honestly, who would you rather be seen as first lady, Mrs Kucinich or Mr Clinton?

If he was given the same press coverage as the DLC’s queen and crown prince, the vast bulk of Americans would see that Kucinich is the first candidate that has run in anyone’s memory who had not been a multi-millionare.  People would relate to him better and more honestly than any candidate in memory. This is a MAJOR factor here, as it was Resident Bush’s obvious intellectual shortfalls that made him electable, because people felt they could somehow relate to this buffoon born with a silver spoonful of oil emblazoned with the CIA logo in his mouth.

Do you mean that the political parties are competing with the churches, etc to own God? I guess not if they merely want to look credible - it takes too much effort.

Low taxes are great but, the way it is usually done, it can only be afforded for the wealthy. Again, too much effort. Same with the McCain/Republican half-baked concepts of health policies.

Religion has already been revolutionized by the big bang theory which is the now-obvious source of Creation. The debate over the ridiculous ‘either-or’ of creation myths versus evolution theory is over - only no-one seems to realize it.

Everybody wants to hang on to their fantasies of a ‘big daddy’ in the sky (which may be true if we were all created by space people). The trouble is that also seems to apply to health strategies. There is a whole new wave of natural therapies and diagnostic systems available in the past few decades which are being totally ignored - in favor of the old failing and ludicrously expensive medical model.

Hillary’s seeming “calculating and that her victory might be more about restoration than renovation” may be so but, again, change has to start from somewhere - and that somewhere is where people and systems are at now (and in 2008). Yes, it does take some ‘calculating’ because nothing fits and the changes have to come from peoples’ willingness to change. In that case, ‘restoration’ of a proper way of going forwards rather than backwards is a positive step.....

Too bad about Obama, though. He chose to speak out of place - after all, Hillary is his senior and she is “more experienced and more qualified” than he is. The fact that he got suckered into touting the Republican’s policies on Pakistan kind of proves that. It was a mistake which he must learn from. In another decade, he will be at the top if he accepts his lessons.