It would only be a matter of time for a Clinton operative to expose Obama’s recent use of crack cocaine in 1998.

Gordon:

If you are going to cite Carl Bernstein as a source, then let’s look at something else he said. Bernstein claims that Hillary was dead set AGAINST NAFTA, and even argued with Bill about it numerous times, quite angrily.  She warned him about the dangers of it, particularly the loss of American jobs.  Yet because Bill was president and Hillary did not feel comfortable challenging him publicly, she did not do so.

Bernstein is no Hillary-lover.  His book is no love song to or apologia for her.  So there seems no reason why he would make this up.

Given that NAFTA is second only to Hillary’ vote for the Iraq war resolution in the minds of the Hillary-bashers here, this should give them SERIOUS thought about the comments they have been making in this regard.

Peace.

Barrack is too much of a weak link. All it would take is for some Republican operatives to investigate Barrack’s homosexual jaunts as well as hooking up with his cocaine dealers to spill the beans on Obama’s cocaine smoking activities which were as recent as 1998. The Establishment has less to worry about with the Clintons, because people with embarrassing stories are wont to end up dead. Please don’t give me a bunch of caca about me being a Republican operative, for I am just as contemptous of the “other side”.

It was a great intervivew. But Shelby Steele is a conservative and no liberal and in the end, I really don’t care for his analysis of whether a black person is a bargainer or challenger.

I’m white and I supported Jesse Jackson’s bid for the presidency in ‘84 and in ‘88! What does that say? That now if I support Obama I’m supporting a bargainer but back in the 80’s I supported a challenger?

I don’t care! It’s your position on the issues! I don’t care how much Obama engratiates himself with the rich whites as long as he could actually propose some historic change in government policy. But has Obama done that??? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which is why I CAN’t support Obama. It has nothing to do with his skin color. Does Obama support a physician run, single payer health care system? Does he support a decriminalization of marijuana? Does he support draining the Lake Powell? Does he support ending the war on drugs? Will he promise to take all American troops and mercenaries OUT of Iraq within the first year of his presidency?

No, no, no, and no! This is why I support Kucinich. Because with Kucinich, it’s not about race or gender. It’s about his stands on the greater issues of the day.

And it’s a tragedy someone like Kucinich can’t get elected because of the average stupidity of the American voter who always has to vote for a “winner” and can’t seem to vote for a candidate who doesn’t raise the most money.

What a terrible representative democracy this country purports to be.....

boggs, You scare the hell out of me. Not one ounce of your post is true.  You’ve never listened to Hillary as she can answer any question off the top of her head intelligently. If you don’t like her you don’t like her but don’t make up garbage like you just spewed in you post.

This is not what I heard from a number of people “on the ground” in New Hampshire.  I know at least half a dozen people who went to various rallies and other appearances of the candidates.  According to them, at most stops, Obama gave his standard speech, and either didn’t have a Q&A;at all, or had a short Q&A;at which he provided some coherent answers to the questions.

On the other hand, at three of the four events that Hillary held, she gave about a 10-minute speech, and then answered questions for up to TWO HOURS.  And those who were there say that she was not only NOT “vague,” but had cogent, coherent answers for every question.  Even the two Obama supporters I know who were there were unexpectedly impressed.

Now - why Hillary seems mostly unable to translate that into the public sphere is another question, and a good one.

Peace.

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

I take exception to two comments here.

First, he says “So there was the former president chastising the press for the way it was covering the Obama campaign and saying of Mr. Obama’s effort: “The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.””

It is clear watching the video that BC was NOT referring to “Mr. Obama’s effort” - i.e., his entire campaign - but rather his specific position on the Iraq War. That a man with as much integrity as Bob Herbert should so willfully misreport this is stunning.

As well, referring to the hype surrounding the campaign, he says, “And there were disturbing signs that Senator Obama himself had bought into the hype.”

Poppycock.  Mr. Obama was the chief architect of the hype.  He had nothing to “buy into” since he was its progenitor.

Otherwise, I felt this piece was quite on-target.

Peace.

Precisely what I would expect from you, Doug.  You begin your prior post by saying referring to my observation that Clinton and Obama are two sides of the same corporate coin as “credulous garbage.” You support this by raising a straw man, the bogus assertion that I do not see the Republi-crooks as part of the same form of illegal tender.  When I demolish that straw man and point out that it is you who are shoveling the garbage, you feign indignation that “I” am the one who is being “nasty.”

The level of your intellectual dishonesty may be disturbing but certainly not surprising.  To the contrary, it is precisely what I have come to expect from your mumblings.

“...that results in weakness, fear, resignation and finally total and abject cowering compliance.”

Perhaps in you. For me I realized that voting this party or that is no solution. The system is agenda driven no matter who is in power.

True freedom lies in owning land that you can grow your food on. As soon as you get ensnared in the system by getting a factory job or a white collar job, then that is when your troubles multiply.

“Oh, I am unemployed. I need therapy. Oh no, I need food stamps. Oh I have an addiction and I need to go to rehab. Oh I need a loan for my education. Oh my wife doesn’t love me anymore for my love of cheap thrills or her love of cheap kicks.”

Own your land underneath your feet. The freedom of the Roman people became imperiled after the veterans brought home slaves from the defeat of Carthage. You had surplus labor. You had yeoman farmers thrown out of work by slave labor plantations. Then all these people need bread doles, when that had not been much of a problem before the Punic Wars.

Then there were the farmers of Sumer. What need did they have of their government There was a tax for burial, and then a head tax, a beer tax, a marriage tax, and a tax for wheat grown. Most of Sumer’s cities were filled with bureaucrats and the artisans who catered to their trade. Though this is was the start of civilization, you can see that in extreme cases the cities can drain the rural areas of their vital energies.

Urban centers have much to contribute but if you are dependent too heavily upon them, then you leave yourself vulnerable to economic cycles. Many in the Russian peasant movement of the 19th century saw their expulsion from agricultural areas as a way to force them to work in factories as a great insecurity and threat to their survival.

Look at how agricultural the United States was before the Great Depression. What are we to do now should our country go through another depression?

Yes, government can do much good, but at the end of it all, if you are dependent upon them, then you are at their mercy. Yes, you can keeping voting in the party with most generous subsidies to your class and position, but don’t you think you will end being abused like a rented jackass with the strings attached? How long will it be that they will require a camera up your ass and a chip inside your brain as a stipulation to get whatever benefit you need?

Am I a Republican? Am I a Democrat? What I am is plebe who feels subject to a despotic system that can demand that I debase myself for whatever cheese I may require.

What I would want is a large wholly owned spread, so that I can evict any agent of the government on my land without a court order. I don’t need vaccinations, war spending, global military bases, the FBI, the IRS, the BATF, NAFTA, illegal alien amnesty, Federal Reserve and the UN.

I know this sounds thoroughly 18th century, but I do not want to be anybody’s serf.

In fact, it is virtually identical, with only minor details being different.  And BTW, Hillary was the first to offer this specific approach; i.e., before either Obama or Edwards.

Peace.

I’ll be the only to say it. You are a complete idiot, comparable to your beloved prez. Obviously you believe anything spewed forth from this regime, so when you’re finished ranting I have a bridge I’ll like to sell you in Brooklyn.

DC,

I don’t see anything strange about it. Obviously Obama was telling the people at the anti-war rally that he was with them in opposing the Iraq war while at the same time guarding himself against charges of “pacifism” which would make him unelectable.

Tony

You’ve got to be kidding, Doug.  Do you really believe that someone like me who consistently supports Dennis Kucinich is suggesting that because I decry the sell out of the Democratic base by the Clintons and the Obamas that I am suggesting that the Republi-crooks are better?

When it comes to the global class war, the difference in the policies of the Republi-crooks and the corporate sector of the Democratic Party entail mostly tactics, but the goal is always the same--perpetuation of the global corporate project and massive inequality at the expense of the middle class aspirations of working class people everywhere.

Your right, Doug, there is some remarkable garbage being deposited on this site.  Time you woke up and got a whiff of what it is you have been shoveling!

#By Ernest Canning, January: “Hillary & Obama are two sides of the same corporate coin....”

D’ya mean that the GOP candidates aren’t???

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

I’ll tell you what I mean, “I hate my government.”

This is the one in which he said “I don’t oppose all wars” three times at least.....”

DC,

Here we go again. Do you oppose all wars? I don’t. What I oppose, as Obama has said also, is dumnb wars and policies which lead to war. We will not have wars if we have an intelligent foreign policy, a policy that puts human rights and international law above imperialism.  Making the speech Obama made at the time he made it, when he was running for the Senate showed courage and good judgment. But we can probably agree that that one speech can only carry him so far, and the vague rhetoric of “change you can believe in” is wearing thin.

Thank YOU, Village Elder, for such an excellent commentary.

And, you are correct in that John Edwards is the only one who has CONSISTENTLY addressed this, as has Dennis Kucinich.

Now, I must also say that Barak Obama HAS ‘addressed’ it in his speeches. Several of them actually. However, I will admit that I’ve not seen anything in any ‘published policy’ that takes this to task.

I’ve also not looked at John Edwards’ website recently, so I don’t know exactly how he plans to tackle it. Dennis Kucinich DOES have a plan on his own, which puts me in mind of the New Deal, and the Great Society. It worked then. We sure need something now, and damn fast.

Matter of fact, we need to try to make it retroactive some sort of a way.