Message to the terrorists, foreign and domestic:
We Americans are not scared.
Not scared of Bush and his corporate henchmen who are running scared behind a new law absolving them of all crimes going back to 1997. Gosh, why did they need absolution?
Not scared of a few thousand “terrorists” in foreign countries whose own people do not, cannot support policies that kill women and children just as effectively as Bush’s “shock and awe”.
Not scared of the House Bill, 1959, making some thoughts illegal, like believing in Justice, Democracy, etc.
Bush is the best thing that ever happened to Democrats-- now everyone can see the true nature of the GOP-- abolishing the Bill of Rights, forcing Americans to work for peanuts and no benefits, lying again and again, and co-opting media to echo those lies.
Sorry George, but a rich boy bully will never understand what the Constitution is. Those of us who made our own way in life agreed to live by rules that enable us all to be free-- a freedom you’ll never know. We don’’t need five thousand troops to provide security so we can visit foreign countries, or even go “home” to Texas, which we suggest you do before you’re indicted for what is, according to the Nuremburg Tribunals, “the supreme international crime"-- a war of aggression. Maybe Paraguay won’t extradite you?

I’d amend it to, Are we better off now?

Is there any other decade in modern history that demonstrates that we all, the entire world, are dependent on each other, economically, spiritually?

We have had more war, more suffering, more pain, more fear, more fear-mongering, more want, more needs.... since 2000 than any decade since 1930; all since a Christian Fundamentalist Whitehouse Administration came to power on the shoulders of Christian Fundamentalist Foreign Policy makers and on the backs of the American and Middle Eastern people.

And there are still 2 more years. One of which will still be under control of delusional, apocalyptic leaders.

If you happen to be among the 1 percenters, though, things are just great!

Obama vs. McCain for reality-based voters.

Remember what Ann Landers would tell readers who were faced with a problem and they didn’t know which way to go? Ask yourself: Are you better off now than you were in 2000?

If you answer yes, then stay where you are, but if you are like most of the population I have come in contact with in the last 7 years, you are worse off now, especially since the 2000 stolen election.

Mary makes a good point: everything was a great deal rosier in 2000.  Today, a large segment of the American population sees things going downhill; they will be more open - regardless of the commentariat (great word, by the way) - to populism.  Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is led by old warriors from the 90’s, still bruised and scarred from those political battles.  They seem unwilling, at least so far, to embrace populism.

The other difference is who’s doing the talking.  Al Gore is hardly an inspiring figure. (Ok, the Global Warming campaign has inspired many, but it is neither a campaign for office nor one with actual opponents.  Moreover, his current success may well stem from a great desire to be inspired rather than inherent inspiration.)

If populism is going to be “us vs. them”, it will fall flat on its face so long as us is being led by someone obviously one of them.  Consequently, Obama can rally the masses (particularly the young) because he can make himself seem more us than them.  Clinton won’t be able to pass herself off as one of us because it is obviously not true.

The Dems will shy away from outright populism in the general election, but their candidate might be able to muster some success with it by indicating how they plan to structure the administration.  For example, if the nominee suggests that they will appoint Edwards as AG, they might be able to harness some of the force of populism without embracing it wholeheartedly.

Either in the slate of phony corporate “electable” candidates or in our ability to have legitimate national elections.

Much better Marie. At least this one addresses the reality of our previous mistakes, with the hope that we might see this time, though admittedly, things don’t look any better, based on that ‘pundindtry’ that still influences far too many Americans.

On this:

• With the focus on HMO outrages during the 1990s, the former vice president can be forgiven for not having predicted a worse development: the number of Americans without any health insurance has grown by 8.6 million since 2000.

This is because (I think) he couldn’t have predicted 9/11.

I suspect that there is a considerable ‘link’ between the losses of so many jobs, and the fact that there are so many Americans without health insurance now. My industry alone, (and there had to be countless others) lost nearly 100,000 employees. Along with that job loss, was the loss in health insurance. Add that to all of the other stuff, and we see how it has happened. Or, at least that helps understand a part of the reason.

Prior to the Coup of 2000, most Americans were insured for health coverage, via their employers. When such a substantial (formerly employed) portion of the population loses their employment, then they lose those benefits. Any replacement employees, (at least since 2001) have generally not been provided these same benefits. The corporations have drastically improved their own profits, by denying such benefits, and so…there we have it.

Meantime, I’ve often wondered what horrors may have come from an executive due that included Joe Lieberman. As much a populist (and as smart as Al Gore was and is) he had this snake as a running mate. Who could have known? Obviously, Al Gore didn’t know he was such a snake either. Or, at least I didn’t.