Oh, just so I’m clear about my wholly irrelevant opinion of Dennis Kucinich I have just replied to an article elsewhere about his ‘crime’ of not being genuinely ‘pro-choice’ thusly: (I beg the indulgence of other posters but I do have quite strong personal feelings on the matter and I’ld prefer not to be mistaken for someone whose ‘go for the system not the man’ arguments only come about because because I do not ‘get’ Kucinich.

“If he *were* still pro-life I’d feel like I’d come home. Pro-universal health care, against capital punishment, supporter of equal rights for gays, anti-war (especially this illegal one) , pro constitutional rights and pro impeachment of Bush I am deprived of my very own sterotype. So with the same brilliant logic applied to Mr. Kucinich (by those for whom there is only slogan, faction and ‘side’) I am held suspect by both right and left. This man’s stand for what was right re. Muny cost him his career. Being ‘pro-life’ (*all* life *and* decent quality of life), is a seamless garment not a smorgasbord from which cowards pick and choose according to the dogma and political correctness of their chosen socio-tribal ‘badge’. Dennis is not a coward and that is a rare and precious thing. The Tao says that in a nation of liars honesty is prized; when injustice is normal the just are revered - and a nation where heroes appear is a nation in trouble. Dennis Kucinich looks like a hero to me, in a nation of take the soft option, mouth your opinion as loud you as you can and look the other way while your neighbor struggles for survival, justice, freedom - so long as I’ve got mine (for now) - jellyfish. i.e. A nation in trouble.

Ernest, you really are exceptionally good with nail-heads and hammers! There are some really urgent and practical measures needed as we write; restoring the violated consitution before the violations *become* the de facto constitution (on which Ron Paul is quite good, isn’t he?); forcing corporations subsidized by ordinary Americans to make billions for themselves from the spoils of Iraq (thus looting two countries) to pay a ‘war tax’ to offset the depression the war has caused at home; restoring the checks and balances of the 3 branches of government; restoring the impartiality of the law for all, vice president and farm worker alike - et alia. And however good he may be, Denis Kucinich - or any other candidate - is going to be helpless to oppose the runaway train of corporate government, even as president, unless ‘we’ do something about the system itself.

But who wants to attempt anything they feel is hopeless from the start? So ‘we’ also have to believe we can invent and implement and be the change we want to see. We have to be able to explain - hopefully as well as you do - what is happening, its consequences and what we *can* do. And that has to be more important than RepubloCrat party politics, I think.

Hi Yankee:

How ya been doing? I lived in a small Massachusetts town long enough to know the power of the Catholic Church. They are scary. I could tell you some stories. I heard of a progressive journalist who had his eyeballs, nose, ears and everything else that was free hanging cut off by some roughs. Something he had said, aye? But there are some very noble souls up there as well. New England is funny that way. Some of the very best and the very worst are there. Imagine the land of Emerson also has many eggheads at Harvard who can’t stand the man’s ideas. Lobster rolls are good, too.

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.

Ernest:

Despite the position I have taken re the Obama v. Hillary debate here, I am in agreement with you on this 101%.  Indeed, your post should be required reading throughout the land, as it perfectly sums up, in just a few paragraphs, the basic, bottom line, foundational problem with the system.

Sadly, of course, it is unrealistic to think that any significant change will ever come about, since, as you note, the problem is so deeply ingrained and, also as you note, perpetuated by the system itself (politics, media, etc.) AGAINST the people.

Indeed, in talking about “Clinton or Obama,” you imply another cogent point: that people see Obama as an “agent of change” more than Hillary - but completely IGNORE a TRUE agent of change like Kucinich (or Paul) because (i) they are led by the nose via the media, and (ii) deep down, they are AFRAID of too MUCH change.

Bravo, Ernest.  Keep those cards and letters coming…

Peace.

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?”

CY:

Never said I was okay with it.  Simply mentioned it as fact.  Didn’t think any more need be said.

Yup, run’em all out of town.  Wish we really could do that: clean sweep; throw out all 600 in Congress and start afresh.  But it aint gonna happen.

So...stating reality is not the same as being happy with it.

Peace.

Well Ernest,

You’re still right about Kucinich, and I’m still gonna vote for him in the primaries, and hope for the best. (even though I told Maani I was gonna vote for Obama, just sort of hoping it might cause him a hate..er heart attack.)

I don’t know though, how possible it is to totally reverse the effects of NAFTA and the WTO. I see the WTO losing influence, as more and more of the former ‘3rd world’ countries are able to shrug them off. The effects of NAFTA though, (at least at this point) are now far worse on us, than they even are on some of the other countries that were initially so destroyed by them.

I mean to say that at what point, and how long will it take, to restore the know-how to become relatively self-sufficient again, in producing what we need? There’s no way to avoid trade, so it means coming up with fair rather than free trade, and it means we’ll actually have to start BUYING the stuff that the gangsters have been stealing for so long, and keeping to themselves. I don’t know how that will happen. Hopefully somebody on Dennis’ team does.

So, while I’m not ‘following the pack’, I’m trying to stay in the reality, since I personally have only this one vote.

Meantime, here’s something from a while back, on the health care thing. Not as ‘substantive’ as we’d like to see, but I think it displays SOME difference in the mindset between Hillary’s history, and Obama’s intent...while not necessarily articulated in his plan.

Obama Assails Private Medicare Plans
By David Pitt
The Associated Press
Saturday 12 May 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051307F.shtml

Douglas, I’ve come to the same conclusion,
• 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 fact, it was stated as such in a lecture the other evening, though actually, Prof. Falk was a bit more drastic in what he believed it would take. I don’t know if it will be a ‘series’ of crises as much as the ‘final blow’ (I’m thinking that the ‘crisis after crisis’ has already occurred). So, I don’t see much happening by way of resolution after resolution, if only because we’ll never survive that long.

Still, I think this part of your post also sums it up really well:

• 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......
The fact that we are failing economically is going to FORCE the change, even if it isn’t ‘chosen’. At least that’s my opinion. Yeah, it would be BETTER to ‘choose’ than have it a forced option. But, I don’t know if that’s going to happen. I don’t know that there’s time for that now.

Thinking back, France actually DID choose, (at the last minute) or realized that they could NOT survive as an ‘empire’. I don’t know how much longer we have to voluntary choose that option.
Still, if anyone is likely to ‘choose’ it, (without destroying most of us in the process anyway) than it would be Dennis Kucinich.

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?

This is true. She was a grassroots organizer in her Yale days. But, while we’re at it, she was later a partner at Rose something, which was the firm that defended GWB in one of his many corrupt failures as the owner of Harken Oil. He screwed up enormously, (as usual, with anything he touches) and the investors lost big, and Hillary and Co got him out of it.

Oh the other hand, Chalmers is correct in saying that since she entered politics as first lady, she hasn’t really been a corporate lawyer in the sense of a full time career at it. Or, any other kind of lawyer for that matter.

In other words, not like Edwards or Obama.

It is worthwhile to add that Hillary ALSO started out as a grassroots organizer (when Obama was still in diapers), something that seems to get lost in the (often cynical and weakly supported) Hillary-bashing.

Peace.

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.

You’ve got to be kidding me.  Clinton is a lawyer for christ’s sake.  How do you know when a lawyer is lying?: her lips are moving.  When people testify before senate committees they don’t say “I don’t recall” because they have poor memories.  When Hillary testified before the whitewater grand jury she didn’t answer a single question.

Ernest,

I just came across this on my favorite website…at least for access to lots of pertinent news, though it isn’t set up for reader comments. Anyway, reading it brought to mind your comments here. I don’t really have much of an opinion one way or the other, except for the last comment in the piece, which is exactly the same thing that I said at the time of the shutdown of the Florida re-count in 2000. The last sentence on this particular piece is this:

• “Perhaps the best thing that could happen for us is to have a recount to show the people that ... the votes that were cast on election day were accurately reflected in the results. And I have every confidence that will be the case.”

Now, in this case, (from what I can tell from the article) they WILL be able to do this, because they do have a paper trail. Whether or not it comes out as accurately reflected in the results, remains to be seen. Still, it’s just as well to go ahead and redo it, if in fact that’s what Kucinich has requested.

And, that was my point back when the Coup took place, and all of my pro-Dick Bush colleagues were hollering about how and why they didn’t need a re-count in Florida. I suggested that if Bush was really about anything, it would seem like he’d WELCOME a re-count, just to prove that he had in fact won the state. Now of course we know that wasn’t what Karl Rove wanted at all. The dirty bastards.

Kucinich Seeks NH Dem Vote Recount
By Stephen Frothingham
The Associated Press

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108C.shtml

You mean Ralph Abernathy or Obama as the nice colored fellow? I haven’t heard that expression in years.  Hillary goes out of her way to be fake and phony. FDR and Kennedy kept their upper class accents, even with addressing the most down at heel crowds. I am not saying I hold FDR or Kennedy in that high regard either.

No, I don’t care for Obama. He has Zbig Brezinski as an advisor. Zbig is a real killer. Secession may be an excellent idea. I suggest every state try it.

Paracelcus:

Actually, you mus’ be awful goldarn stupid if you think that there is ANY politician in the race who is NOT talking down to you...and that includes that nice colored fella…

Maybe y’all should just secede and have done with…

Peace.

I am by nature a Southerner. We are not stupid! We know when we are being talked down to. We once took crooked rock oil salesmen to be tarred and feathered, then we would put a pine rail underneath their nutsacks and rode them out of town.

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.

Ernest:

Re troop withdrawal, they have both changed their positions since the debates.  As noted, both of them are now saying they would withdraw MOST troops one or two brigades at a time (~3,500 to 7,000 troops) within 18 to 24 months, leaving only enough troops to “fight terrorists” (whatever THAT means!).  This was reported in both the mainstream and alterative press, as well as on the websites of the candidates.

Re the Peru thing, simply go to Project Vote Smart, and check out their votes on the 12/04/07 bill re the U.S.-Peru Trade Agreement.  BOTH of them had “NV” votes, meaning they either did not attend that session, or attended but did not take a specific stand.  I have done a comprehensive exegesis of their respective votes, showing that, since Obama arrived in the Senate, the two of them voted identically 94% of the time.  My exegesis can be found at: http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2008/01/09/mb- civic-original-opinion-reality-check-who-is-barack-obama/

Brief correction:  Democracy Now revealed on 1/11/08 that Dennis Kucinich has asked for a hand recount.

Interesting Maani that you make claims about how quickly Clinton will have us out of Iraq, yet chose to ignore that both Clinton and Obama, when confronted in a debate, refused to state that all combat forces would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term, 2013.  You claim that Clinton and Obama did not vote to extend NAFTA into Peru.  As this “claim” is at odds with information posted by several advocacy groups which had opposed that measure, please provide a link that substantiates what you say.

What you cannot deny is that it was Pres. Clinton who joined with Bush and Reagan in ramming NAFTA and the WTO through on the fast track.  Everything the Clinton I administration said about these neoliberal agreements has proved false.  Indeed, the only one to accurately predict their impact was Ross Perot when he said, “You hear that?  It’s a giant sucking sound of jobs headed south!”

Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Obama both served on the Wal-Mart Board.  In 1991 Wal-Mart did not have a single store outside the U.S.  Thanks to NAFTA and the WTO, Wal-Mart is now the world’s largest corporation.  It’s “always low prices” translates to “always huge profits"--$7 billion per year, profits that have placed five members of the Walton family amongst the world’s ten top richest people with a combined personal worth in excess of $100 billion.  This enormous wealth at the top is punctuated by poverty level wages of Wal-Mart employees, the more fortunate who receive $15,000/year.  The Scrooges at Wal-Mart are not satisfied with paying minimum wage.  At home, they devised an “off-the-clock” scheme in which employees are instructed to clock out, then assigned extra tasks for which they receive no compensation. Abroad, Wal Mart has aligned itself with sweatshop labor and has become the world’s largest purchaser of goods made in China.

NAFTA & the WTO represent the betrayal of the base of the Democratic party--working men and women.  Mr. Scheer is absolutely correct.  This election is about class.  We are in the midst of a global war on the middle class aspirations of working class men and women, and your friends, Obama and Clinton, are on the wrong side!

You hit the nail on the head, CY.

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.

Douglas Chalmers, Sorry, my bad, I was replying to Goffredo, don’t know how I did that, took me awhile to figure out who I was responding to myself.

Dr Know it all,

You’ve definitely got a point. Maybe it should be your wife who should be addressed as Dr. Know it all.

Anyway, it’s a good idea, but here’s the rub...just because women remember everything, doesn’t mean that they’re likely to ‘recall’ it under Senate investigation. Hillary doesn’t remember a lot of stuff, that she SHOULD remember.

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.”

There is no doubt about it: a better electoral process is needed desperately

January 9, 2008 at 11:16:19 New

New Hampshire Election Fraud

by Ron Corvus

http://www.opednews.com

Tell A Friend

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it................I knew it HAD to be election fraud.........let the election season fraud begin.
New Hampshire Election Fraud: Hillary LOST the paper ballot count but WON the optical scan ballot count. Obama WON the paper ballot count but LOST the optical scan ballot count.

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008

Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

2008 New Hampshire Republican Primary Results --Total Republican Votes: 236,378 Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008

Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 33.075%
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 25.483%
Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 7.109%
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 9.221%
Machine vs Hand:
Romney: 7.592% (17,946 votes)
Paul: -2.112% (-4,991 votes)
I knew there was something a bit fishy about Hillary winning New Hampshire.
First of all, today, all the polls indicated a double-digit lead for Obama.
Obama internal polls had him winning by 14 points. Hillary’s camp had him winning by 11 points.
Even the Hillary camp conceded virtual defeat early on.
Even Hillary believed she had lost before the polls closed. I can’t recall a primary where a candidate had a double-digit lead the day of the election, but finished several points behind. Even the exit polling showed no sign of a Hillary win. The exit polls showed about even. Exit polls have a history of accurate projections.
Despite this, Hillary maintained about a three point difference the entire evening.
AP called it for Hillary with only 61% reporting. CNN still refused to call if for Hillary, as they explained and demonstrated on an electronic map how several key precincts had not come in yet. But that didn’t stop NBC calling it for Hillary.
With 94% reporting, those key precincts STILL showed zero per cent reporting. NONE of the TV pundits could explain the differences.
Here’s one pundit’s excuse: “Maybe it has to do with the voting curtain in New Hampshire (private voting) whereas Iowa was public voting.”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_corv_08010 9_new_hampshire_electi.htm

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!

Hillary is a neocon. You need only look at her history. If you don’t wanna go back that far, just look at her record in the senate.

anuary 9, 2008 at 11:16:19

New Hampshire Election Fraud

by Ron Corvus

http://www.opednews.com

Tell A Friend

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it................I knew it HAD to be election fraud.........let the election season fraud begin.
New Hampshire Election Fraud: Hillary LOST the paper ballot count but WON the optical scan ballot count. Obama WON the paper ballot count but LOST the optical scan ballot count.

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008

Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

2008 New Hampshire Republican Primary Results --Total Republican Votes: 236,378 Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008

Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 33.075%
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 25.483%
Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 7.109%
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 9.221%
Machine vs Hand:
Romney: 7.592% (17,946 votes)
Paul: -2.112% (-4,991 votes)
I knew there was something a bit fishy about Hillary winning New Hampshire.
First of all, today, all the polls indicated a double-digit lead for Obama.
Obama internal polls had him winning by 14 points. Hillary’s camp had him winning by 11 points.
Even the Hillary camp conceded virtual defeat early on.
Even Hillary believed she had lost before the polls closed. I can’t recall a primary where a candidate had a double-digit lead the day of the election, but finished several points behind. Even the exit polling showed no sign of a Hillary win. The exit polls showed about even. Exit polls have a history of accurate projections.
Despite this, Hillary maintained about a three point difference the entire evening.
AP called it for Hillary with only 61% reporting. CNN still refused to call if for Hillary, as they explained and demonstrated on an electronic map how several key precincts had not come in yet. But that didn’t stop NBC calling it for Hillary.
With 94% reporting, those key precincts STILL showed zero per cent reporting. NONE of the TV pundits could explain the differences.
Here’s one pundit’s excuse: “Maybe it has to do with the voting curtain in New Hampshire (private voting) whereas Iowa was public voting.”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_corv_08010 9_new_hampshire_electi.htm

Oh, OK if I have to :-(

See my comments below.  Such a ticket would be unbeatable, but much can happen in 4/8 years to make both Clinton and Obama pariahs if they ran together.  The prime directive in politics is don’t wait when you’ve got momentum----go for the gold ring and so it shall be.  We may see an Obama /Edwards ticket yet.

Please look up Sir Francis Bacon’s The New Atlantis Right near the close of the Elizabethan era, a book was written, explaining the foundation of a faux republic in the Americas. This republic would outwardly appear to be representative of the people but from its very foundations the strings were pulled by factions of elite interests, who cared not a whit about the interests of the ordinary citizens it ruled over. Please look up Alan Watt.

I remember how Alan Watt spoke at length about The New Atlantis by Sir Francis Bacon. This book was published around 1598. The book expounds upon an outward republic in the New World that seems to operate as a representative democracy, but is really controlled by behind the scenes powers. He speaks of a puppet government from the very beginning that was never established in good faith. I recommend that all truthdiggers google Alan Watt and the phrase “Cutting through the Matrix”. I would like especially for Robert Scheer to look up Mr. Watt. I fervently hope that Mr. Scheer gives Alan a column to write in Truthdig. There is not a more original political commentator then Mr. Watt. Mr. Scheer is sure to increase his web traffic. And I feel Mr. Watt’s commentary would fertilize and stimulate the minds and intellects on Truthdig. He squares the circle in research and analysis. He is veritable polymath.

Arrogant??  Think about it!  Why would anyone want to be president at this time when we are so messed up.  Hillary could go home and she and Bill could go on the speech circuit and have a good life.  None of this crap would bother their lives. Power hungry, arrogant, I think not. I honestly don’t see how she stands all of the abuse she takes very day. Your rational is just plain
moronic and republican pundit regurgitation.  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.

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.

If Obama gets the nomination, it will be Jim Webb as his running mate.  And then you can forget the Republicans even exist because if anyone wants to debate the Iraq war or the Global War of Terror, Webb will bring the smack down.

If Hillary gets it, to bring a more liberal flavor to the party, I think Feingold will get the question.  And I’m not against that ticket.  If Hillary wins, I’m okay with that.  As long as it is not a neocon fascist...we will be much better off.

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.

Fox News - Media Control over election process
Good thing we still have PBS.... Fox News Corp… (more)
January 05, 2008

Good thing we still have PBS.... Fox News Corp - this may be the best explaination as to why Ron Paul was excluded from their debate, even after beating Rudy in Iowa and having 17 million more in campaign funds than Rudy… hummmmmm??? Oh ya Rudy is buddies with Rupert of course…

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b76_1199987921

By Goffredo, January 10: “She’s arrogant and thinks we should support her simply because she was Bill’s wife....”

You couldn’t be more wrong, Goffredo. That is exactly the realistic and no-nonsense approach needed in a president. That it comes from a senior person makes it authoritative. If Edwards or Obama said it, it would be arrogant, though.

Its not about throwing tacks on the dance floor for everyone else to step on, either. Hillary is entitled to expect that other democrats should co-operate. She is, after all, “the most experienced and the most qualified person” they have.

When the Democrats learn to dance to one single tune, they will succeed. If they continue with a childish knock-down fight to find their (best) presidential candidate, they could eventually lose entirely. Instead, the junior candidates should back their senior as the one true leader.

In that way, there will be a position for each of them. There is a vice-president to be selected out of all this too. It won’t be Hillary Clinton, though. She won’t stick around if they want to make this into another boys’ club game. You can predicate what happens next in Washington on that.

By the way, whatever Scheer wrote about “class” is garbage. In fact, he started off with that as a topic then failed to discuss it through his usual pathetic sexist attacks on Hillary. What he really meant by “play the class card” was the race card in regard to Obama, though.

Scheer is full of excuses for himself but what are you going to do to stop a Republican being elected and having to move across the Atlantic? As you say, this election is much too important to lose.  I know many Australians didn’t stay stay in their country after their former Neocon prime minister was elected in the 1990’s.

A million of them now still live and work overseas and it has had the most awful effect on their country. Almost all of the most educated/ most intelligent people left and the “monkeys” remained. Only the influx of South Asian and East Asian migrants kept things going forwards.

Now is the time to choose well what you all really want for your country, uhh.....

Actually, no, I didn’t have Kerry mixed up with Clinton.  I was referring to Hillary’s remarks prior to the N.H. vote.  The context is similar to the neocon/Fox News tactic of fear-mongering.  She said this when referencing the failed bombing attack in London after Gordon Brown was named Prime Minister:

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”

She’s arrogant and thinks we should support her simply because she was Bill’s wife.  She claims to have experience but sleeping in the White House for 8 years does not constitute foreign policy experience, especially in post 9/11-American empire expansion campaign. I don’t support her. 

The last thing we need on our side is a candidate who is going to through tacks on the dance floor for everyone else to step on.  This election is much too important to lose.  I like my job and want to stay in this country.  If a Republican is elected we’ll probably move across the Atlantic.

Posters to this thread may find the following notice from a Slashdot article of interest:

«A Black Box Voting contributor has compiled a chart of results from hand counted precincts vs. results from machine counted precincts. In machine counted precincts, Clinton beat Obama by almost 5%. In hand counted precincts, Obama beat Clinton by over 4%, which closely matches the scientific polls that were conducted leading up to the election.»

you wrote: “Who was doing the “ideological hijacking”, DuckPhup? It couldn’t have been your boy with his mezmerizing ring-thing logo?”

LOL. I do not HAVE a candidate. I do not regard ANY of the candidates on EITHER side of the aisle to be qualified to lead this great nation. And the pool of candidates who are ACTUALLY qualified to lead this great nation… the most intelligent, most sane and rational, educated, most intellectually honest, most ethical and moral… are automatically DISQUALIFIED from seeking office by virtue of the fact that they are unelectable.

They are not electable by because they are NOT so gullible and drooling stupid as to believe in invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairies (gods).

A couple more random comments:

Re “Both Obama and Clinton recentedly voted to extend a NAFTA-like agreement into Peru,” this is the second time this canard has been posted.  The truth is, NEITHER of them voted for it.  Both of their votes were “NV,” meaning they were either absent that day or chose not to take a stand.

Let’s at least be honest if we are going to debate the candidates’ positions.

Re Hillary and Iraq: As I noted, Hillary has been talking about a schedule of 1-2 brigades per month. Here is her actual statement, as reported by The New York Times: “I think we can bring home one to two combat brigades a month...I think we can bring nearly everybody home, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily.”

As well, here is her response during the YouTube debates: “You know, I put forth a comprehensive three-point plan to get our troops out of Iraq, and it does start with moving them out as soon as possible...I have done extensive work on this. And the best estimate is that we can probably move a brigade a month, if we really accelerate it, maybe a brigade and a half or two a month.”

As noted, a brigade is ~3,500 people.  This means bringing home between 3,500 and 7,000 soldiers per month.  Given a total current presence of about 100,000 troops, this means between 42,000 and 84,000 troops would be back within a year.

Obama’s plan is similar.  And note that he has gone from calling for COMPLETE withdrawal by May 2008 (in a bill he proposed to the Senate in January 2007) to withdrawal of all but a “small force” within one year of taking office.

Finally, let me ask a question that I have asked on other threads here: Does anyone here other than me actually take the time to do the research necessary to provide honest, factual, supportable responses? Given the amount of misinformation, error, omission of facts, and what seems like regurgitation of the GOP playbook vis-a-vis Hillary, I am inclined to say “no.”

Peace.

When measured by whom they truly represent, the upper crust, there is not a sliver of difference between Clinton and Obama.  Both provide bland generalities ("hope," “change"), both speak as if they are truly concerned about the plight of ordinary Americans, yet both have received campaign funding from the health insurance lobby.  Both candidates provide lip service towards health care while advancing, as purported “reform,” variations on the same health care insurance subsidy scheme that Richard Nixon proposed back in 1970 to counter the single-payer plan then advanced by Sen. Kennedy.

How can Mr. Scheer ask us to consider that he is really concerned with “class” when he fails to mention the only candidate who truly represents the interests of the working and middle classes--Dennis Kucinich--the only candidate to advocate the elimination of the middle-man parasite (for profit insurers and HMOs) from the health care system; the only candidate calling for a repeal of NAFTA & the WTO (devices installed courtesy of the Clinton/Bush alliance that opened the door to the outsourcing of America’s manufacturing base by economic elites searching for the $2/day laborer as what remained of American labor has been Wal-Mart-ized).  If Mr. Scheer is serious about class, why not mention that both Obama and Clinton recentedly voted to extend a NAFTA-like agreement into Peru; that Hillary and Obama’s wife are both former members of the Wal-Mart’s Board.

We again deal with what Noam Chomsky describes as a “democracy deficit"--the substantial gap between where the elected representatives and their constituencies stand on issues that truly matter, courtesy of the fact that U.S. campaigns are the product of deceptive advertising and a conglomerated corporate media that will deal with personality, polls and money, but NEVER issues of substance.  It is the deceptive nature of campaigning in the U.S., Chomsky tells us, that frees up the elected representatives to protect the interests of “the substantial people.”

Here we are, just two states into the primary season, and the field appears to be narrowing toward two Democratic candidates (Clinton & Obama) who say we will still have our troops in Iraq in 2013 and a Republican candidate (John McCain) who says we should remain in Iraq for 100 years--which, when measured against how the vast majority of Americans feel about that imperial conquest, reveals the true effectiveness the Orwellian propaganda network, aka the conglomerated corporate media in deceiving Americans into voting against their own interests.

After all, why would you vote for someone who would actually represent your interests when you have a chance to join the pack and vote for someone the press has already told you will be the winner?

How does raining down uranium waste in Yugoslavia count as humanitarian? BTW, the UN mission was heavily involved in the prostitution of young girls in Yugoslavia. There were also covert operations in Yugoslavia that setup a heightening of tensions not unlike MI5 and MI6 juicing up the IRA.

If I could reiterate, now it looks like the Bushman is about to fulfill his long-held dream of taking it on to Iran.  Wouldn’t this ensure the political suicide of the republican party in the ‘08 election? Won’t this outrage even the most loyal repub. voter?

He and Cheney (where is Cheney, BTW?) have just about destroyed their party.

If the Dems can’t take the WH and increase their majority in congress this time, then all us LIBERALS had better either move out of the country or found another LIBERALLY minded party.  Surely, the Dems must be thinking and talking about this--and the Republicans too, for that matter.

Hillary Clinton has made clear she intends to continue the war, although she hopes to do so with fewer troops.

Bill Clinton ran large trade deficits—essentially borrowed money.

As for Bill Clinton’s war crimes and support for ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia (not to even mention Palestine), click http://www.monthlyreview.org/1007herman-peterson1.htm

A few random responses.

To hettie, jackpine savage and Inherit the Wind: Brava/o!

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.

Re Hillary vis-a-vis Albright: Even assuming Albright is actually advising Hillary, is this any worse than Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is Obama’s foreign policy advisor?

Re Hillary being “willing to deal”: uh...duh!  Why - do you think a president simply makes a decision and implements it?  Not!  Presidents much be willing to “deal” (at least potentially) in both domestic and foreign affairs, to say nothing of Congress.

Re NAFTA: Okay, okay - it was bad.  But it is only ONE thing, however bad it may be.  Get over it.  Move on.

Re Iraq: Hillary has stated that within 60 days of taking office, she will begin bringing home the troops at LEAST one brigade per month (~3,500 soldiers).  That means that within 12 months, at LEAST 1/3 (and likely more) of the troops would be home.  So all this talk about Hillary “continuing” the war is simply poppycock.  And Obama’s plan is not much different.

That said, whoever noted that “70%” of Americans want an end to the war and the troops home is correct.  And this is why McCain will NEVER be elected - no matter WHO runs against him.  Because he has made it clear that he LIKES this war, and intends to remain in Iraq indefinitely.

Re J Borowski’s comment that “I believe there will be no presidential election this year since the right-wing will cause an incident allowing them to justify a dictatorship i