Quote E.J. Dionne: “Clinton was rated favorably by 78 percent of Democrats, Obama by 69 percent and Edwards by 62 percent..... Yet many Democrats share the concerns these candidates raise about each other, wishing that Clinton was not so burdened by history and that Obama was more battle-tested....”

The fact IS that all Americans are burdened by history and ARE in need of some one who they know can “survive walks through minefields”. It only still seems a little strange to some that the best person for the job is a woman......

Sunshine:  While I agree with most of your post, I should point out that single-payer health care is not “free” healthcare.  The cost of healthcare would be borne by the nation as a whole just as the cost of our national defense is borne by the nation as a whole.  These two necessary “national costs” are not unrelated.  In a Kucinich administration you would see a drastic reduction of wasteful expenditures on the voracious military-industrial complex and, of course, an end to the bottomless money pit we call Iraq. 

While there would immediately be an approximately 30% reduction of adminnistrative costs for healthcare by the elimination of for-profit carriers and HMOs as well as a move to institute price controls on the run-away pharmaceutical costs, one has to consider the interrelatedness of Mr. Kucinich’s policies across the board.  His plan to repeal NAFTA & the WTO and return to bilateral trade agreements that respect worker’s rights and the environment will serve to stop the bleeding of our manufacturing base, initiating a reversal of neoliberal policies in order to move us back towards New Deal era reductions in inequality. 

Thirty years ago, at $1.3 million, the average annual CEO compensation was 39 times that of the average worker.  Today, at $37.5 million, it is over a thousand times that of the average worker, who experienced a ten percent loss of real wages during the same thirty years.  The gap is so great that by 1999 the net worth of just three individuals, Bill Gates, Paul Allen & Warren Buffet, was larger than the gross domestic product of the world’s 41 poorest nations and their 550 million.

Policies that would work to reinstate a vigorous middle class, creating energy efficient, environment sustaining jobs here at home as opposed to inefficient and energy-wasteful practices of importing goods produced by sweat-shop labor in China and India would serve to restore a fiscally sound tax base, which, when coupled with elimination of wasteful military expenditures, would more than amply underwrite our healthcare and educational funding needs. 

The key to appreciating why it is that Kucinich stands head and shoulders above the rest is that he is the one candidate who appreciates the need to restore the “public interest” in governmental policies--where the rest have been bought off by the corporatocracy which is the very source of our demise.

I weep because these candidates are far too busy posturing than wanting to do the right thing!  If they continue with this foolishness they will once more help the nation elect a bad Republican.

How can Mr. Dionne say “Bill Richardson could pick up votes on the left as the strongest advocate for withdrawal from Iraq” when Dennis Kucinich is still in the race? The last time I looked, Mr. Kucinich was way more dovish than any of his opponents, and has the best plan for ending the war. 

The marginalizing of candidates like Congressman Kucinich and others that represent real differences on issues rather than the cosmetic ones Dionne describes contributes mightily to voter cynicism and apathy.  Why should we voters continue to pretend that we have a choice in the matter when it’s MSM pundits and big campaign contributors that really decide the horse race?

And BTW, I did respond directly to Mr. Dionne.

I trust you folks complaining about articles like this have emailed the authors with your complaints.

Yet another useless piece of trash from the corporate media.  Mr. Dionne offers the usual empty images of the three hollow shells posing as “Democratic frontrunners” while ignoring the one candidate of substance, Dennis Kucinich.  He talks about “universal coverage” but fails to even mention the difference between these variable schemes on how to subsidize a healthcare insurance industry which already accounts for 31% of the spiraling costs while ignoring single-payer that would eliminate the unnecessary middle men (for-profit insurance carriers and HMOs) with a public administered healthcare system which would cost 1% to 2%.  He mentions Obama and Hillary as allegedly anti-war while neglecting that both have said that if they are elected, our troops will be in Iraq in 2013!

What amazes me is that writers like Dionne actually get paid for this crap!  Isn’t it bad enough that we get this stuff day and night from the corporate press.  Why at truthdig, you dig Mr. Scheer?

http://members.aye.net/~gharris/blog/MaynardGKrebs19.jpg

“The Democrats’ Facebook Primary”

You may think yourself Stephen Glass- Facebook Primary??- but you will always be Dobie Gillis to me. These big foot types always write alike. Wow, how mod and stylish you are! Yet you say nothing! Everyone of those psychopaths have connections to think tanks and elite affinity groups. CFR comes to mind so easily. Don Corleone was a piker! Keep going EJ. You have an extremely tiny audience who really loves you.

#114694 by mary

“John Edwards could be the best candidate to beat the Repub candidate and the criminals are very afraid of that.  THat is why we have MSM pushing Sen Clinton.  Is she really the front runner, or are we being fed bogus statistics again.....”

***********************
Milan, Italy, Jun. 6 (UPI)—Among the 100 or so invitees to the annual Bilderberg conference under way Sunday in a northern Italy resort is potential U.S. vice president John Edwards.

Reporters generally are not invited and those who are observe the conference group’s general pledge of secrecy, reinforcing the view of conspiracy theorists that the elite gathering is up to no good, London’s The Guardian newspaper reported.

Sen. Edwards is regarded in Democratic circles as a good performer in his battle with Sen. John Kerry for the nomination to be presidential candidate and so is expected to be a finalist when Kerry chooses a running mate.

Other invitees are Mrs. Bill Gates and likely are regulars Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger and U.S. Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld.

The Bilderberg tradition began in 1954 as a transatlantic post-war sounding board.
==============================
the Bilderburg Group, has apparently at their June, 2004 meeting, already
anointed U.S. Senator John Edwards (D., No.Car.) as the new U.S."elected"
President. Since that group includes the barons of the monopoly press, they
will twist the brains of Americans to make Edwards the new President. And
naive, poorly informed Americans will still believe that they decided who
was to be President when it was actually decided ahead of time and foisted
upon the know-nothings. At the hands of the more-and-more arrogant
Establishment, Ruling Class, “powers that be"---or simply THEM---U.S.
Presidential elections are a fraudulent dead letter, a magic show decided
ahead of time and performed on half-awake Americans.

**********************************

When will Truthdiggers wake up? You keep endorsing politicians who meet with the real decision makers of the world. No one elected them to be rulers of the world but they constantly vet our candidates as if they were giving the job interviews. Our vote means nothing if the world royalty has them in their pockets. Wake up! Don’t blindly say, “Oh he looks like nice guy...Oh perhaps it is time we had a woman in office...Oh yeah let’s have a black man.” I am tired of the mooing and baaing- herd noises! Do you know how vacuous and brain damaged you sound!? God! Wake up!!!

@ #114766 by Hammo

http://www.cfr.org/bios/5486/christopher_j_dodd.html

Trade

A self-described “free trader,” Sen. Dodd (D-CT) nonetheless expressed mixed feelings on the negative effects of free trade in a speech on the CAFTA-DR Act of 2005.

Homeland Security

Sen. Dodd (D-CT) has backed homeland security reforms on several occasions. He voted in favor of the Patriot Act in 2001 and voted to adopt the conference report to reauthorize it in 2006, but he also cosponsored the 2005 SAFE (Security and Freedom Enhancement) Act, which would have amended the Patriot Act to include limitations on wiretapping. That bill did not pass. Dodd voted to make FEMA independent from the DHS in a 2006 bill. He also voted for the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.

*****************************************

http://www.rickross.com/reference/3ho/3ho96.html

The governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson was recently scrutinized for flying around in a helicopter that costs the taxpayers of his state $495.00 per hour reports Albuquerque’s KRQE TV.

One of the governor’s stops was at an “International Peace Prayer Day” at the so-called “Sikh Dharma” (also known as 3HO) near Española on June 21. Richardson was the keynote speaker at this event.

However, the Española religious enclave has a troubled history and it has been called a “cult.”

Mainstream Indian Sikhs have often dismissed and disavowed both 3HO’s leader and his teachings.

Critics of Yogi Bhajan, founder of the group, say the authoritarian guru not only exerts dictatorial control over his followers, but also has a historical predilection for demanding sexual favors too.

Bhajan’s devotees are largely a collection of counter-culture “hippie” holdovers from the 1970s. Westerners who typically changed their Anglo surname to “Singh” and “Khalsa” and/or whatever else their guru wanted.

Bhajan and his associates have a history of scandals, ranging from financial fraud, to sex and illegal drug trafficking.

Guru Jot Singh (also known as Robert Alvin Taylor) a key leader within 3HO who now lives in the Española community, was indicted as an international drug smuggler. Taylor was caught and convicted for the illegal importation of marijuana and served a sentence in federal prison.

Why would Governor Bill Richardson, a former US congressman, past Secretary of Energy and United Nations Ambassador agree to be a “keynote speaker” for such a specious group?

This is an interesting story that began decades ago.

It seems that Bill, a dedicated fund-raiser, probably feels indebted to the guru for his generously arranged campaign contributions. And a cursory check over Richardson’s historic contributors list will reveal more than a few “Singhs” and “Khalsas” that helped to fill his campaign coffers.

Somewhat disturbing though is the length Bill Richardson was willing to go, in an effort to help out his friend the guru and the Española “cult compound.”

On October 25, 1985 Congressman Bill Richardson was “hand-delivered” a letter from the Chancellor of the “Sikh Dharma.”

The letter said in part; “We have been informed that the above [phone] numbers are and have been the subject of electronic surveillance by the United States government during the past several months&Would;you please make an inquiry with the Justice Department, the CIA, the National Security Commission and any other government agency that may be involved in this surveillance and inform me of the results of your inquiry.”

Bill did exactly what was asked. He sent a letter days later to the FBI.

**********************************

The above is background on Richardson and Dodd. There is enough to it, to make my nose wrinkle at the stench of these two. Do you have any other ideas?

As Dionne says, “Who has the best chance of ending, and then transcending, the Bush era?”

If the Democratic candidate does not appeal to enough voters in the general election to beat Mitt Romney or John McCain, we will have more of the same.

Though Obama and Edwards are good candidates, Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson might have more appeal in a general election.

Food for thought in the article ...

“Democrats risk self-sabotage in presidential race ... again”

AmericanChronicle.com
November 5, 2007

http://americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp? articleID=42271

Precisely because candidates paint broad, triangulated pictures of their stands on issues, voters tend to judge character and values in deciding whom to vote for. After you cut away the equivocating, the triangulating, and the obfuscating, voters look at personality, character, and a candidate’s persuasiveness. You might be able to figure out which one could accomplish the most and best change. If the victorious candidate is a Democrat, you can bet he/she will face ruthless, self-centered, corporate, media, and detroy-the-opposition-at-all-costs Republicans.

But unfortunately with the stellar advances made by moneyed-interests, media monopolies and with the demise of unions since the advent of tyrant Bush, even Democrats will be greatly compromised by those who financed their campaigns.

Quote E.J. Dionne: “On foreign policy, Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, Edwards has cast himself as a born-again anti-warrior, and Clinton has sounded steadily more anti-war as the campaign has progressed....”

Despite what some people would like to believe, wars will not go away immediately after the election - nor in January 2009 when the new incumbent takes office.

A strategic withdrawal from the Bush Neocons’ mess in the M.East will still have to be a planned and phased operation possibly taking many months. Israel’s ‘teeth’ will have to be drawn as with Pakistan’s if there is to be real peace.

In the meantime, regardless of election promises, the economic climate is worsening in the USA and the unpleasant truth will eventually have to be faced by voters and candidates alike. Certainly, winding down the military will be a cost-saving exercise.

None of these things are popular but they are on the path to successfully facing up to climate change. AIPAC will have to go the way of the old cold war dinosaurs. States which depend upon the military-industrial complex for employment will have to find something else to support them.

Question.  Since only 20% of the sample group chosen to be polled in the first place is part of the group finally polled, how is that other 80% chosen? 

Groups polled are supposed to reflect the entire voting population.  Do they?

Because of the band-wagon effect and the human tendency to support whoever seems to be a winner, poll results end up affecting future poll results which end up affecting voter choices.

As hard as it may seem, most American Voters see right through this inside the beltway manipulation.  Sen Clinton is a very good candidate for the presidency, however it’s very clear she is still too close to DC insiders for real change.  John Edwards/Obama ticket is a winner.  Biden and Dodd will do great things for any Democratic President, but they won’t be in the Oval Office.  The Repubs are deathly afraid of an Edwards/Obama ticket.  THey know that will give the Democratic Party enough time to repair the incredible damage the Repubs have done to our Democracy, and weed out their own problems, like Nancy and Harry.

I am very tired of Pundits, so-called journalists, and the lack of news we are fed daily.  The likes of Blitzer, Russert, Matthews, Hannity, O’rielly, Scarborough need to go and be replaced by real news people.  We cannot let these guys force us to elect their corp picks to the highest office in this country!  When you stop paying journalists and news people insane, sports-like celebrity salaries maybe then we can get true hard-hitting reporting.  But as long as these people draw those huge salaries and continue to hang with the elite criminals corp execs and DC insiders, we’re going to get exactly what these criminals want, not the truth.  John Edwards could be the best candidate to beat the Repub candidate and the criminals are very afraid of that.  THat is why we have MSM pushing Sen Clinton.  Is she really the front runner, or are we being fed bogus statistics again.....

A change election means a change from the Clintons as well.
Another pass for Clinton.
Get a clue:

‘Thursday night’s debate in Las Vegas marked a distinct effort to shift the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination to the right, to the benefit of Senator Hillary Clinton, the clear frontrunner in the campaign and the most right-wing of the candidates.

In contrast to several previous debates, there was little attention given to Clinton’s history of support for the war in Iraq and for the Bush administration’s war provocations against Iran. And efforts by Senator Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards to criticize Clinton fell flat, as the audience—seemingly packed with Clinton supporters—booed, and the other Democratic candidates disavowed the attacks.

Media commentary afterwards framed the debate as a significant success for Clinton, citing particularly her exchange with Edwards, which set the tone for the debate early on. Edwards criticized Clinton for backing continued US occupation of Iraq, voting with Bush and Cheney on a resolution on Iran, and defending a corrupt, corporate-dominated political system in Washington.

Clinton replied, “You know, we’re Democrats and we’re trying to nominate the very best person we can to win. And I don’t mind taking hits on my record, on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it’s both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook.”

The suggestion that criticism of Clinton’s right-wing positions was “right out of the Republican playbook” makes no sense, since the Republican demonization of Clinton revolves around portraying her as a closet socialist, not as a warmonger or a tool of corporate interests.’

What do inside the belway journalists know of what Americans think? They take marching orders to frame what and how American voters should think though. Recall how successful the “Kerry is more electible” conventional knowledge pimped by MSM worked last time.

Again the corporate empire has dictated which candidates the American people may vote for. Much like the old Politburo of not so long ago in Russia.
Deedle Dee or deedle dum it makes no difference. Hilliary will do to social security the same as Bubba did to welfare. Make no mistake the difference between Obama and Hilliary is which corporation do you prefer to reign.
Sadly this applies to the repugs as well. Political scientists are well aware our famous Experiment in Democracy is a failure. Until we have a supreme court that is not bought; corporate money will always rule.