It seems that the Truthdig editorial staff would rather have ANYONE except Mr. Obama elected . The cozying up to Mike Huckabee is a glaring example of how how pathetic Mr. Scheer and his staff are in their attempt to derail Mr. Obama’s campaign . It is very difficult not to consider that RACE is an issue here . I also find it difficult to excuse my consideration that overtly , Mr. Scheer and company attempt to hold contempt for Hillary Clinton , but covertly , she is their candidate of choice . If women bemoan breaking through the glass ceiling , what is it like for a black presidential candidaate .
    Most blacks and many whites realize that any black man or woman can only go so high on the political ladder . On the black side of this issue is a feeling of great frustration and resentment that since their emancipation , progress for blacks in all areas of American Culture , society , business , and politics has been an extremely slow process .
    The white side of this issue is very simple . A couple of questions either privately thought or said , or publicly spoken - “Look how far they have come .”- or - ” What more do they want?” .
      How dare a black man to desire to become president . Shame on Mr. Obama !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama’s white support is affluent.  Clinton’s white support is working class.  Obama needs to get some of that working class support:  Go after her on NAFTA.

Thanks. Please check out http://www.wearechange.org. They are a crew of credentialed journalists, who do real journalism. When they ask questions, the thugs and goons come out to push them away. See how disgusting they are from Tim Russert to Hillary, from Silverstien to Gergen. These rulers are real creeps. They act like dictators when asked unscripted questions.

Haven’t you read about him?? He says that American imperialism is incompatible with a democratic state with a generous social policy. He said that the military expenditures would take away from the social budget. He said that the American people would tire of these foreign ventures. Do you really think the military industrial complex is going to be fought with this monster on board. No! You will get more police state and repression. He is a fascist, and yet Obama has him as an adviser. Boil it down to this: our government is a Third Way, scientific dictatorship. Brand A or B with just implement different paradigms of tyranny that work together.

Obama is totally NWO. He has Zbig as an advisor. You know the guy who advised the Chinese to support the Pol Pot and Kmer Rouge! I hate my government. It is corrupt from the horizontal to the vertical. It is time to secede!

Questions about the accuracy of the Diebold voting machines in the New Hampshire primary seem worth researching further. Many special interests seem to want Hillary to be the Dem nominee. Food for thought in the article ...

“New Hampshire primary results questioned: Electronic voting machines threaten U.S. democracy?”

AmericanChronicle.com
January 11, 2008

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=48586

Let me make this clear: I really hate my government. They give us these sock puppets, and then I am supposed to vote for them out of party loyalty. No more!!! You are going down!!

Vic, this is good and thanks for posting it here.

So many people now are parroting the “Obama has no substance” attack being perpetrated by Hillary, Inc.  This is proof positive that Karl Rove knew his stuff.  Just say something, keep saying it, and you will soon hear it repeated.

People really should check out Obama’s website before repeating the Clinton mantra. 

It is so depressing that politicians actually get this to work for them.  In the meantime, no one calls Hillary on her 35 years of experience and what that actually is comprised of.  Does campaigning count?  Is “first lady” relevant to public policy?  Oh, yes, Bill did task her with national healthcare in his first administration.  Her failure is legendary.  The real fairytale going on here is that Hillary is a powerhouse legislator and player in national politics and has been for 35 years.

Will we ever get past the Bushes and the Clintons?

The time has come to pass the torch.

Hillary, no matter what kind of support she gets cannot be elected as president, for one simple reason. She will never be able to over come her stance on immigration. She’s already said she wont enforce immigration laws, that will be enough to deny her any election.

Maybe an Obama-Edwards campaign could provide enough votes to increase the number of Democrats in the Senate and The House, but they can’t win either. They won’t be able to over a Bloomberg run, he will take votes away from them and give the election to the Republicans.

So when you watch the campaign, take a good look at the Republicans, because who ever gets the Republican nomination is likely to win. Of course they will run as the party of change, they know how dumb we are. Say hello to McCain-Huckaby your new president vice president.

Hey Cyrena,

I’m a Michigander, maybe i can help you out.  The political leadership in Michigan felt that national politicians weren’t paying enough attention to us, so they moved the primary up without consulting the national party.  We broke the rules and the party is making Michigan pay by revoking our delegates.

Most of the candidates withdrew (and none are campaigning here); Kucinich initially stayed on the ballot and then tried to withdraw, but it was too late.  Only Sen. Clinton stayed.

Yes, if you vote in the Democratic primary and write in a vote, your ballot will be thrown away…why they printed a spot to write in a candidate is beyond me.  A fair number of absentee ballots have already been tossed.  It is Clinton vs. “uncommitted”.  It’s a sticky spot for the Senator from NY.  If she wins by a landslide it can be written off as having no competition.  But she could be seriously hurt by barely beating, or losing to, “uncommitted.”  A group of Democrats is currently running a campaign to bring out the vote for “uncommitted.”  We’ll see.

The twist is that we have an open primary, and the Republicans are campaigning heavily here right now.  A lot of us, me included, plan to sully ourselves morally and philosophically by playing with the Republicans for the day.  Expect to see high turnouts on the GOP side.

Current indications are that Huckabee is drawing large crowds.  The major dailies have endorsed McCain.  Romney’s father was a three term governor here.  And don’t forget that this is militia country; Ron Paul might have his best day yet, boosted by left leaning libertarians who would otherwise vote Democratic.

I’m with you there…that Obama would choose Brezinski (the architect of the our first Afghan strategy, which began before the Soviet invasion) scares me.  This is a guy who looks at a map of the world and thinks he’s playing RISK.

It is interesting to note that he points out how most of the population and wealth of the world are in Eurasia, but it is we who should be in charge.

I found this comment on another website and posted it here because I think it is relevant to the question asked - I found it helpful, and hope you do to…

Bill Clinton is perpetrating his own fairytale, in which he attempts to strip from Obama his rightful advantage as the only Democratic candidate who had both judgment and courage on the Iraq war from the beginning.

Obama’s October 2002 speech against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq has been well reported. Less well reported is that he followed up on that speech against the resolution with statements against the invasion itself, as it was nearing in March 2003.

First. On March 4, 2003, an Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News Democrat, reported this:

“Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question…. ‘What’s tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,’ said Obama, a state senator from Chicago.”

Second. On March 17, 2003, the Chicago Sun Times reported this:

“Thousands of demonstrators packed Daley Center Plaza for a two- hour rally Sunday [two days before Bush issued his ultimatum against Saddam], then marched through downtown in Chicago’s largest protest to date against an Iraq war. Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000…. State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, ‘It’s not too late’ to stop the war.” [

This is relevant for two reasons. First, it shows that Bill Clinton is deceiving the public when he tries to plant the idea that Obama equivocated about the war or was not against the war at all relevant times prior to its being launched by George W. Bush.

Second, it draws attention to Hillary Clinton’s own contradictions on the war. From the beginning of her Presidential campaign, Senator Clinton has said that “If I had been president in 2003, I would never have started this war.” See Feb. 11 Concord Monitor, “Clinton Reintroduces Herself as Presidential Candidate.” But no one has asked her – at any of the fifteen debates – whether why, if she harbored objections to Bush’s decision to pull the trigger on the war on March 18, 2003, she did not – in the critical March 2003 period – use her very prominent platform to speak out against the invasion and claim that it would be a misuse of the authority she voted to grant Bush.

If we credit Hillary’s assertion that she had objections to Bush’s decision to invade, and couple that assertion with the fact that Hillary did not voice those objections publicly, she is worse than someone who just happened to have bad judgment, she is someone who is claiming the mantle of the real leader and doer in this nomination campaign, and yet who was abjectly craven at the single most important moment of her Senate career.

So the real “fairytale” is the one Bill Clinton is trying to propagate by attempting to strip from Obama his rightful advantage as the one who had both judgment and courage on the Iraq war.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard

The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)

“America’s withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy.” (p. 30)

“In that context, how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” (p.31)

“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” (p.35)

“Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above…” (p. 40)

http://adereview.com/blog/?p=38

Let’s call Barack Obama what he is—a sock puppet for the ruling elite. Obama made this plainly obvious recently when he tabbed Zbigniew Brzezinski as his top foreign policy adviser. In addition to his affiliations with the Council on Foreign Relations (as director), the Trilateral Commission, and the National Endowment for Democracy, Brzezinski was the architect of Carter’s Afghanistan policy, that it to say he is responsible for killing thousands of innocents and organizing the Afghan Arabs, later to become “al-Qaeda.” It is said David Rockefeller asked Brzezinski to create the Trilateral Commission and details were hammered out at Rockefeller’s Pocantico Hills estate outside New York City. Rockefeller later introduced the idea to the Bilderberg group in Knokke, Belgium in the spring of 1972.

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

Some Chilling Quotes

http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard

The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski – More Quotes

“...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power…” (p. xiii)

“... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

If you remember, JFK picked Lyndon Baines Johnson as his running mate. In that election, Kennedy played good cop, and LBJ played attack dog. (when he wasn’t picking dogs up by their ears.)

The last thing Obama needs to do now, is fall into the “ANGRY BLACK MAN” stereotype so Hillary and her 527 clan (Emily’s List, AFSCME, and the National Teacher’s Association) can put together a Willie Horton campain with Barack playing the part of Willie, on drugs.

John Edwards was always meant to play the part of LBJ in this election, and he’ll be great at it. He might even keep it up during his tenure as President of the U.S. Senate. But the role of V.P. may end up going to a real southerner, like Mark Warner. Like LBJ, he’s a real Democrat, a real southerner, and a real power player in politics. Enough that Hillary had to buy him off to stay out of the Presidential race. Now he’s running for the senate seat being given up by the Republican John Warner.

Jim Webb would sure scare the shit out of the GOP.

But, the real story out of New Hampshire isn’t the polls, or the postureing of candidates. It’s the Diebold (now Premier) voting machines.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/08/clinton-allies-may-dump-m_n_80460.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/new-hampshire-t.html

A fellow poster has advised me that in the upcoming primary for Michigan, (Tuesday) Hillary Clinton is the ONLY democrat on the ticket, and that no write-ins will be allowed. Now, I haven’t had time to investigate this to find out WHY, and maybe I didn’t understand it correctly.

So, until I have a chance to get more info, does anyone else out there have a clue about this? It seems like I remember some ‘punishment’ to the Dems in this state, for some reason, but I can’t remember where, when, or exactly what I read.

It sure sounds odd.

I’m taking some exception with this piece, even though I generally find Mr. Boyarsky to be pretty much on top of things. However, that isn’t the case this time, specifically in the suggesting that the suggestions of Hope and Change are simply a mere slogan for those who are white and affluent.
I also reject the idea that anyone can or should assume that Sen. Obama can be convinced that blacks will automatically get behind him. For one thing, that isn’t true. Blacks wouldn’t just support him on the mere strength that he is black. If that were the case, then he could just carry a photo of his mother with him, so that white folks could vote for him because she’s white.

So, let’s get beyond what the words of Hope and Change might mean to you, and take a look at some of the other things that he’s said, to get an idea of what they might mean to others, who have heard more than JUST those words, because he actually HAS said quite a bit to back them up. Whether you or anyone else agrees with these things, or believes them to just be rhetoric, it would be smart to at least be AWARE of what he’s saying, which is probably WHY he’s gained the support that he has.

I say that because it’s this VERY SAME population that he’s been addressing; the poor, the jobless, and those that are becoming more and more disenfranchised by the day. Now these links are PRIOR to Iowa and New Hampshire, because he hasn’t exactly been twiddling his thumbs, and he’s been a lot of places, and spoken directly to a lot of the people.

So, don’t sell us so short just yet, in assuming that everyone is just jumping on some bandwagon, because of the words ‘hope’ and ‘change’. And, how many of us are NOT desperate for CHANGE, and how many of us don’t HOPE that this change will come?
This first link is the one that I remembered most vividly, but I had to go in search of the link. In the process, I found several others that I’d also remembered reading and/or hearing. I’ve not included them all, but this at least gives those with such short memories, an opportunity to ‘review’.

Barack Obama: Addresses on War, Poverty and “Quiet Riot” Among Blacks
  t r u t h o u t | Statement
  Wednesday 06 June 2007
Senator Obama delivered the following remarks to the Hampton University Annual Ministers’ Conference.

  Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
  Hampton University Annual Ministers’ Conference
  Hampton, Virginia

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060607T.shtml

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

In South LA Rally, Obama Vows Sweeping Changes
  By Michael Finnegan
  The Los Angeles Times
  Tuesday 20 February 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022107H.shtml

Obama Outlines Plan to Help New Orleans
  The Associated Press
  Sunday 26 August 2007

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082707P.shtml

Obama Skewers US Carmakers on Gas Guzzlers
  Agence France-Presse

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050807D.shtml

Who’s Afraid of Barack Obama?
  By Frank Rich
  The New York Times

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_120207D.shtml

Women are for change, too….

Bill Boyarsky: “I don’t have any statistics to prove this, but neither do the reporters enamored of the Hillary’s tears explanation.  Common sense tells me my theory is valid, along with many conversations with people worried about hard times….”

Oh, well, at least these colleagues of Scheer’s from the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication are a bit more accurate than the woeful Washington writers’ groupies. Pity, then, that the author couldn’t see that the statistics in question (women) are 50%+ of the voters.

That’s rather more than any of the minority groups including the darker-skinned ones. Obama might well hope for change then but there won’t be any change for him unless doctors of law who speak out of the side of their mouths can translate being hopeful for change into some real applicable formula.

In the end, its who you can influence in Congress and in the Senate to get your policies up and running. You also have to have some definite policies in the first place and a team to help push them along who will become your administration.

Otherwise, you will only become prey to the Condoleeza Rices of the former regime (again hopefully) who do have the experience and the connections to derail you at every turn. Having been bossed by her on the Foreign Relations Committee won’t help in the least.

Then there are the establishment money coffers which provide the investment for industry and jobs in the nation. They can’t be ignored and they do have needs. Just being a pretty face won’t cut with them. They have their own power and influence. Playing that game and winning is NOT easy.

So, yes, go for change and keep hope alive for a better way to come out of it all. Change IS the imperative now but it has to be positive and it has to be workable. Climate change is upon us all now too. It will take a lot more than just hoping that it will go away to make survival possible. Same with the recession the US has had to have.

Sorry about the multiple posts screw up.  This website should let you delete posts like other websites do.  And it should get a spell checker.

The Clintons will destroy Obama if he doesn’t get more specific and quit trying to be all things to all people.  They are already painting him as a phony.

His health plan is phony.  He says he will not allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, but he also will not require people to have health insurance.  Obviously, if that is his plan, people will not buy insurance until they get sick.

His position on the war is phony.  He says to vote for him because he opposed the war.  But he says he will continue the war.

The Clintons will tear him up with attack ads calling him a phony, now that the campaign is moving to the big states.  He lacks the experience in national campaigns that the Clintons have.  He is about to learn a lesson, if he does not learn from New Hampshire.  One more note:  He is going to have to go after Hillary more aggressively on things like NAFTA and the war.

Obama’s Needs Some Specific Stands
The Clintons will destroy Obama if he doesn’t get more specific and quit trying to be all things to all people.  They are already painting him as a phony.

His health plan is phony.  He says he will not allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, but he also will not require people to have health insurance.  Obviously, if that is his plan, people will not buy insurance until they get sick.

His position on the war is phony.  He says to vote for him because he opposed the war.  But he says he will continue the war.

The Clintons will tear him up with attack ads calling him a phony, now that the campaign is moving to the big states.  He lacks the experience in national campaigns that the Clintons have.  He is about to learn a lesson, if he does not learn from New Hampshire.  One more note:  He is going to have to go after Hillary more aggressively on things like NAFTA and the war.

The Clintons will destroy Obama if he doesn’t get more specific and quit trying to be all things to all people.  They are already painting him as a phony.

His health plan is phony.  He says he will not allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, but he also will not require people to have health insurance.  Obviously, if that is his plan, people will not buy insurance until they get sick.

His position on the war is phony.  He says to vote for him because he opposed the war.  But he says he will continue the war.

The Clintons will tear him up with attack ads calling him a phony, now that the campaign is moving to the big states.  He lacks the experience in national campaigns that the Clintons have.  He is about to learn a lesson, if does not learn from New Hampshire.  One more note:  He is going to have to go after Hillary more aggressively on things like NAFTA and the war.