I sincerely appreciate the thought that went into your replies.  But I think you miss my core point.  “We” are the system.  The first step to changing the system is to change our approach.  “We"--and by that I mean each of us on an individual basis--must be prepared to first break away from the herd, refusing to cast our primary votes for anyone other than the candidate who truly represents substantive change.  “We” must be prepared to do what we can to get others to follow, and, between elections, “we” must do what we can to awaken others from their apathetic slumber, by directing them to alternative media, by one-on-one discussions when and where they can occur.

So long as “we” knowingly permit the media to frame the issue as “Clinton or Obama” we will live not in a democracy but a corporatocracy.

The issue is not the efforts of one man--Dennis Kucinich.  The issue is We the People.  “We” as a people have grown lazy.  Far too many of us have found it easier to play the passive consumer rather than the active citizen, passively taking in the propaganda fed to us daily by the conglomerated corporate media rather than actively seeking out information vital to a vibrant democracy--information that is available from alternative media like Democracy Now! or from books like Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine.”

It would be amusing if the results were not so tragic.  The PR produces empty shells posing as candidates who tell us “hope,” “change,” “coming together.” The media pundits repeat the mantra, “hope,” “change,” “coming together.” Then the blinded masses with blank stares repeat, “hope,” “change,” “coming together” as they sleep walk to the polls, casting their votes for they know not what.

Meanwhile, the corporate media works tirelessly to make sure the sleep walking masses are not awakened from their slumber by a real live candidate who is prepared to actually deal in substance.  They do this not by attacking that candidate--Kucinich--but by erasing the existence of his candidacy by omitting all mention of it; by keeping him out of the debates, and before that, when he was in the debates, by ignoring him for as long as possible and, when the media must give him any play at all, by asking him something inane, like had he ever seen a UFO.

The mind control exercised over the American masses by the corporate media is damn close to that displayed in George Orwell’s “1984"--a point underscored by the very fact that most Americans have been reduced to deciding “Clinton or Obama?”

Issues?

By Ernest Canning, January 12: “...the one candidate the media has astutely marginalized.... Dennis Kucinich, the only real Democrat running....”

Perhaps so, EC, but the problem we face is exactly the one he faces. The US economic and administrative system is thoroughly corrupt, irrational and merciless and it is impossible for one person to trounce it. Even Jesus was murdered for trying.

Instead, people pick at single issues, whine and attack each other. In fact, it is a global problem and especially so since even the communist bloc reverted to capitalism. That was an inevitability in itself as their own alternative was also as dishonest and merciless.

That is, people have yet to produce a viable alternative to our current system. It is not hard, really, but getting the momentum of change to make it happen is. It is coming but it will happen through crisis after crisis and resolution after resolution instead of being led intelligently.

In other words, none of the candidates offering change (all of the Democrats including Kucinich) can possibly produce anything more than minor incremental change at the outset. Nevertheless, doing so will be an important step. A journey of a thousand miles......

As you say, most of the herd don’t care less and most of those who can think are in refusal or denial to some degree or another. That is a lot of driftwood that the next hurricane Katrina (or drought) will float away. One of the main things that will effect extensive systemic change is accomodating climate change.

First of all, though, it takes a fundamental step in choosing peace and co-operation instead of war and hegemonic powers vying for survival in a changing world. The fact that the USA is failing economically will, ironically, make this an easier option to choose. But the choice must be made......

Sorry, Maani, but NAFTA & the WTO are not one “single” issue.  They lie at the core of the global class war and both Clinton and Obama are on the wrong side.

Here’s another issue--health care.  The US system is thoroughly corrupt, irrational and merciless.  People die because they either do not have coverage or their carriers find ways to deny authorization even when they are supposedly covered.  Hillary Clinton is the second largest recipient of health care insurance lobby contributions--second only to George W. Bush.  The so-called “reforms” offered by Obama, Clinton and Edwards are but plans to subsidize the health care insurance industry.  None of them is significantly different from the one offered by Richard Nixon in 1970.

There is only one candidate who stands with the American people on this issue.  One candidate who would eliminate the unnecessary middle men (for profit carriers and HMOs) which account for 31% of U.S. health care costs.  He is the same candidate who is calling for a repeal of NAFTA and the WTO, a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, a roll back of media consolidation, including expansion of public broadcasting and a requirement that the corporate media give free air time to candidates and parties.  He is also the only candidate who has consistently opposed the war in Iraq from day one; who has voted against every measure to fund it.  He is the only candidate with the courage to stand up to the Bush administration assault on the constitution and the rule of law by calling for impeachment--the candidate who has not been willing to play the “collect the corporate money to feed the media noise machine game” and therefore the one candidate the media has astutely marginalized.  His name is Dennis Kucinich, the only real Democrat running.

But I am sure you and the rest of the mindless crowd of passive consumers don’t want to hear about issues.  After all, the only important thing is to be able to say, “Hey, I gotta follow the pack and vote form whom the media polls says is gonna be the winner.” Why waste time on substantive reality?  Just ignore the fact that Hillary voted to authorize the war and both Hillary and Obama, who change positions on the subject daily, have both voted to fund it.  I mean, after all, both of them tell us they’re for “change” right?  What more can we ask for?

Re: why we should elect a woman

By troublesum, January 12: “You’ve got to be kidding me.  Clinton is a lawyer for christ’s sake...”

I think you (and Scheer) are making too much of Hillary’s lawyer credentials, especially in comparison with other Democrats candidates. True, she was once a lawyer but it wasn’t a career to the same extent that Edwards is a lawyer or to the extent that Obama is a doctor of law and taught law.

In reality, troublesum, both you and Scheer are simply using the term “lawyer” to mask your usual sexist attacks. Trying to be less blatant about your shortcomings is being dishonest yourself. No wonder, then, that you want to accuse and to smear her to distract attention from your own miserable attitudes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxTnHx5qVQU

She chews chaw for the backy juice cuz it’s a good down home cure for the tapeworm. She knows stills, and she make shine with best of them. She’s a mountain mama. She has cheeks stained with tears for many a coal mining man folk who has been swallowed by the mountains with only a head frame to serve as a tomb stone. Her teats hang like iron and her belly sags hard from many a blessed young’un she brought into the world with gritted teeth. Yep, she is as real as sorghum syrup on cornbread johnnies.

Now I am kind of sad because what started out as irony for Hillary’s sake, just reminds of the hard dirt floor life of the South. I’m sorry but Hillary is not even worth the sweat of a chicken killer.

There is no question but that optical scanners can be manipulated to flip the vote.  But the potential fraud does not automatically equate to fraud.  There are two ways to measure the issue.  First, I have not seen exit polls released on the day of the election that would provide a basis for determining a discrepancy with the official count.  The difference between pre-election polls and exit polls is similar to predicting snow fall a week in advance and estimating snow fall on a given date by strategically placed sampling.

Since we deal with Diebold optical scanners and not with paperless DREs, there would be a paper trail.  The option would be to demand a hand recount, but none of the candidates made that demand.

A mere discrepancy between voting in rural areas on paper and metropolitan areas on optical scanners does not provide sufficient evidence of fraud.  Neither does the gap between the results and pre-election polling, though certainly it warrants raising the issue.

My experience with women is that they never, ever forget.

This could come in handy were the female president ever called before a senate investigating committee and asked to try to recall what happened a day, a week, a month or even years before.

My wife remembers things I said or did a quarter century ago.

We’ll never again hear, “I’m sorry, senator, I have no recollection of that.”

By lib in texas, January 10: “Your rational is just plain moronic and republican pundit regurgitation...”

They have Libs in Texas? Arrogant?? I don’t understand why you want to pillory me, ‘lib in texas’, I was agreeing with your main statement that:-

“Power hungry, arrogant, I think not. I honestly don’t see how she stands all of the abuse she takes very day.... Yes this election is very important and thank god we do have people who want to be president and I just hope for the right reasons...”

I’m sure that most people who criticize (crucify) Hillary wouldn’t be able to stand more than a single day on the campaign trial themselves. She is most deserving of admiration if not outright total support.  Think about it!

Douglas says Obama is a Neocon, cyrena says Hillary is a Neocon - as surely as night follows day, ha ha!

It really is too bad that there is such animosity between Hillary and Obama.  A Hillary-Obama ticket would be a win-win-win: it would be a landslide winner in November; it would give Hillary a chance to show whether her progressive side really WILL come out once she’s in the Oval Office, as well as giving Obama a chance to shine and get serious foreign policy experience; and it will all but ensure that Obama becomes president in 2016 - giving us the first woman president and the first black president back to back.

Peace.

No, hettie.

You are wrong. And wilfully blind.

<Neoconservatism emphasises foreign policy as paramount responsibility of government, seeing the need for the U.S. acting as the world’s sole superpower as indispensible to establishing and maintaing global order.>

And so far, Hillary Clinton has shown herself, in particular with her support of Bush’s invasion of Iraq to be a NEOCON!

To hettie,

To loveinatub: Hillary a “neocon?” Do you even know what that word means?  Please.  Hillary may or may not be as centrist as she claims, but to call her a “neocon” is simply willfully ignorant...or worse.