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

My first choice was Dennis Kucinich, but he dropped out.  My second choice was Edwards, gone again.  Since Clinton represents the interests of the corporate state more than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, there is only one reasonable choice still available--Barack Obama.

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”.

If Hillary wins, it just affirms my worst suspicions of the system. I will be confirmed that electoral poliics is a dead end. There will be not real change if Hillary becomes President. It would be the same for McCain.

Thanks Gordon. I agree with your analysis here...100%.

In fact, Obama has indeed been as explicit as any candidate can be, a year out. And, what I’ve noticed from those who claim otherwise, (the vagueness and such) that he’s been far MORE ‘specific’ than any other candidate, aside from Dennis Kucinich, who is no longer on the ticket.

Like you, I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, but I’m convinced that Obama can do far more for the nation as a whole. Because, despite the fact that Hillary may have long ago changed her Goldwater alligence, I still see her very beholden to the corporate interests that have brought us to this abyss.

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.

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.....

Hillary Clinton is projecting feminine kindness on “Meet the Press” while her surrogates outdo themselves in being outrageous slimy baldfaced liars. Obama surrogates have also deliberately misinterpreted statements from both Clinton while Obama projects his “above the fray” image.

I guess I will have to decide which one is dirtiest. Right now Clinton is well ahead in the contest for the sleaze trophy. By Feb. 5, if they are both so coated with sleaze that I can’t tell the difference, I’m voting for Kucinich.

Thanks for the link.  I have not heard a credible estimate of getting the troops out of Iraq in under a year to 16 months.  The size of the convoys required to accomplish this feat would have to be about 200+.  It’s like shipping all the illegals back to where they came from—using all the greyhounds it would take about 20 years.

Iraq will be with us for a long time and paying for this misadventure will take longer.  Even thugh Bush has broken the military and the empire the financial state of our country will suffer for years as we pay off Bush’s Folly.

“Hopefully, the results of the New Hampshire primary will eliminate Barack Obama’s use of the vague and misleading words hope and change in his presidential campaign.”

The first sentence of this article is a good indication of how the voters are being manipulated. Voter anxieties about the economy, the war, illegal immigration, etc. are obviously understandable but let’s face it; no candidate (republican or democrat) can make sincere promises at this stage of the electoral process. (Once nominated, they may be held accountable for what they promise the electorate.) Promises from candidates in the primary election process of how they will address issues is to ask for lies since candidates cannot know all pertinent factors that will affect their the promises. It is more realistic for those interested in evaluating candidates to listen to them discuss issues and what believe they can do to improve or eliminate them, as they do this you will get the best evidence the candidate’s intelligence, integrity, sense of honor and motivations. (“Given enough rope they will hang themselves” or not.) The political polls and attack ads generated by election managers do not serve voters seriously seeking to make the best possible voting decisions. If you are going to vote to sustain a political party, (democrat or republican) consider the records of both parties in the past years, and if you still feel comfortable voting for a political party; our country is beyond hope.
Personally, I feel a persons vote is too valuable to entrust to political hacks that only care about what voters think when it is possible their candidate will lose. 
Obama’s use of the word “hope” and “change” is an indicator he has a reasonable understanding of the voter’s serious loss of faith in “career politicians and their parties” who have made many promises but delivered little. As an independent voter, I agree with him on this point and I will listen closely to him in hopes of hearing him expand on his vision of the efforts needed to achieve hope for all Americans and change from the corrupt autocratic politicians that have usurped the democratic principles on which this country was founded.

Re: I Love the Words Hope and Change…

By Maani, January 14: “Obama gave his standard speech, and either didn’t have a Q&A;at all, or had a short Q&A;.... Hillary...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… were unexpectedly impressed...”

Well, that IS “the public sphere, Maani - Hillary doesn’t really have to “translate it” - its just there for all to see. Peace.

Then again the NY Times political Caucus blog is at it now too with the sexist slant, something they didn’t do at first last year. It seems that political favoritism is now justified as a means of creating distorted attacks and all semblance of honesty has left the journalistic profession, such as it is.

The sad reality, though, is that the real issues are left untouched and the real damage to the USA is perpetuated by such distractions. Political correctness has now become an excuse for obliquely using racism to justify sexism http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/the-clin tons-and-history/index.html?8au&emc=au

“Hopefully, the results of the New Hampshire primary will eliminate Barack Obama’s use of the vague and misleading words hope and change in his presidential campaign.” [However, Hillary and everyone else have co-opted them and utter them as often as possible in subsequent talking points. As the NYT pointed out—more often than Obama now.]


“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.” [No statistics, yet he builds his entire narrative upon his gut feeling of “common sense."]

“So far, Obama has offered a gentler approach, everyone around the table, drug companies, doctors, health care reformers, lawmakers, presided over by a compassionate Obama who believes in the power of hope and change.” [This is nothing but a cynical, sarcastic parody—Saturday-Night-Live style.]

In sum, this is the next page of Bill Clinton’s fairytale narrative—something Edwards disclaimed and Rove approves.

Boyarsky denigrates his impressive resume with this Rovian attactic: obliteration of fact through disregard for fact—Rove’s malevolent twisting of one’s opponent’s strength by flat out lying about it. Boyarsky does precisely this in repeating the ridiculous canard that Obama has no policy and runs around prophesying and promoting an amorphous hope and change unattached to any reasonable policy strategies, as they had been presented in detail time and again in all format-technologies available (Google “Obama and topic"). Boyarsky merely repeats an unsupported conclusion to which he attempts to give credibility through mere repetition of the unsubstantiated (a lie).

Rove’s distortion of “Cogito, ergo sum” misinterpreted as “I think it, therefore it is” is the first premise of and necessary condition for Rove (and now Hillary’s junta) to make whatever lie is propitious seem to be the truth. Truth will win if you stand with it. Courage (L cor, heart) is a necessary ingredient for the triumph of everything good and true and beautiful.

By the way, Bill playing “the heavy” is going to backfire, as he was what was most liked about the Clintons. Two bad cops a winning strategy?

Great interview by Bill Moyers this weekend with Shelby Steele who wrote a book on Obama.  Excellent discussion of race in America, the Obama campaign, etc.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01112008/profile2.html

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.

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.

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.

Obama’s words “Change and Hope” may be vague but I haven’t a problem with them because I know where they come from, and they are filled with hope. On the other hand I find fault with the vagueness of Hillary’s answers to any question. She is truly a professional when it comes to tapdancing around a direct question. Her answers are so vague that I have to wonder if her problem is
that of being uninformed or is it a matter of hiding the true answers???
She also is proving to be very adept at playing dirty tricks with little verbages that harm another but almost seem like she didn’t really utter them.
Hillary is so cunning and sly and corporate, that it scares the hell out of me.

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

This should work

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/hill ary-clinton-is-a-subs_b_81211.html

It is Schlesingers saying Hil is a substantive candidate.  Three paras on a proposal for the economy.

FYI All:

Seems the economy is now trumping Iraq as the #1 issue for most Americans (though it is still true that 70% oppose the war and want the troops out).

Here is the NYT editorial, as well as economist Paul Krugman’s opinion piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14mon1.html? ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.ht ml?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Peace.

MackTN:

You ask, “Who among us doesn’t wish that we could be the ones asking questions of these candidates?”

Absolutely.  And my very first question would be this:  “Can we get a firm, unwavering commitment from you right now that, if elected, you would, within your first 100 days, undo, rescind, repeal and otherwise reverse all of the signing statements, executive orders and back-door machinations that Mr. Bush undertook to shred the Constitution, undermine our freedoms, civil liberties and privacy, and centralize power in the executive branch?”

I’d REALLY love to hear their responses to this.

Peace.

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.

By cyrena and Tony Wicher, January 13: “Tony…in response to this from DC… I find your view of that speech twisted. It shows that you are unwilling to see things as they are, and fit everything into your preconceived ideology....  it WAS an honest speech...”

Ha ha, an “honest” dishonest speech. What more do you want to affirm disavowal and denial? Refusal is a form of delusional mental state, or, take “cognitive dissonance” as the lesser if you wish.

Unable or unwilling to see things as they are, you two merely stamp your feet and demand that everything fits into your preconceived ideology, uhh.

BO is/was a typical Machievellian (stealth and deceptiion) war monger and he insulted the anti-war rally with his self-aggrandizing words there - designed to pander to AIPAC and similar manipulative forces (namely the military-industrial complex).

So Brzezinki’s urging of the Chinese to support Pol Pot is alright with you? His strategy of tension in Afghanistan is no “Zbiggy”? Guess who got his start in Afghanistan with Zbiggy’s help. That ‘s right: Osama bin Laden. I am tired of being governed by psychopaths. So you grabbed one foot of the devil, while Dershowitz clasps the other foot.

Do you remember that Rockefeller dispatched Zbiggy to start up the Trilateral Commission, a globalist organization?

We are hated all over the world because we are in everybody’s backyard. How would you like if you have the planes, bombs, and tanks of some great power in your own land? It doesn’t matter if you in live Germany or in some Pacific Island. Our soldiers f**k
your women for money and puke in your bars. It’s bound to annoy and bother. How would American citizens like a Chinese barracks in their backyards.
Zbiggy wants this sort of thing. He thinks we should populate all the break away Russian republics with American barracks, which we already do. And yet Bush still wants to look into Putin’s eyes for his soul. My government is the oppressor and goon force for a global elite. Zbiggy is another fat man for this elite.

Tony,

I’m not shocked about Dr. Brzezinski, and from what I’ve interpreted from him, I would agree with your own assessment.

I do think he well represents the support of the progressive Jewish community.

I wasn’t aware that you’d hooked them up, so I think you SHOULD be proud. (even if you HAVE been designated as the ‘new kid on the block’)

(Sorry, but I did find that to be a rather amusing, and revealing comment from our most prolific Maani, whose chosen to speak for those who have ‘been around these threads a week or so).

This is an interesting assessment, (from yesterday’s paper I think). I always appreciate Bob Herbert’s honesty.

Of Hope and Politics
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011208D.shtml

“...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.

Tony…in response to this from DC

• I find your view of that speech twisted. It shows that you are unwilling to see things as they are, and fit everything into your preconceived ideology.

Just for the sake of saying it, I find this twisted view in just about everything he posts. There are a FEW exceptions from time to time, but they’re so few and far between, that one can get really tired wading though it. Mostly, it’s just nasty and negative nitpicking, and the rest of the time it’s totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

But, there’s still that 1st amendment. I guess we have to take the good with the bad. That’s the reality of it. Besides, there’s actually something to be learned from such a collection of personality disorders.

Meantime, it WAS an honest speech, and I suspect that the biggest trouble with Obama right now, is simply that he’s being too ‘cautious’. I’m inclined to agree with mackTN, if he wants to break passed the pack, (and right now, I’m still putting my own vote on Kucinich, this first time around) then he’ll need to throw all caution to the wind, and SPEAK UP.

Because, while he’s playing Mr. Nice Guy, and avoiding the nastiness and the dirty tricks, (and I’d say most of the Dems have so far, with the exception of Hillary, and that’s just an honest call) he’s also not getting the substance of his message across.

And, if John Edwards can do it, then Obama should as well. And, John Edwards HAS. There’s no denying a very notable change in him since the beginning days of this, and believe that people respect that.

Meantime, Obama is far more in step with the John Edwards ideology, and has far more in common with him, than he does with Hillary. Now of course if Obama were to seem less of a threat to HER, and Edwards becomes (perceivably at least) MORE of a threat to her, (he’s already got the corporate elite shaking in their sueded boots) then she’ll start swiftboating HIM, and Obama may catch a break. (at least temporarily...long enough to say what he’s got to say.)

Who among us doesn’t wish that we could be the ones asking questions of these candidates?  I am wholly disatisfied with their responses on a number of subjects and can’t understand why the moderators won’t pin them down on their statements.  The only Dem is has answered questions unequivocally to my satisfaction is John Edwards--but I am particularly receptive to his stance against the rise of the corporatocracy.

Obama won’t win by being cautious.  Lately, in interviews, I’ve heard him provide more detail in his answers but still, I’m not sure what his priorities would be his first year in office and how he would go about acheiving them.  The Hope and Change thing will take you only so far, and now it’s so overused to become a Leno joke. 

If Obama had knocked Hillary out of the race in New Hampshire, he could have coasted to super tuesday.  But whatever mysterious force affected the outcome of the New Hampshire primary to save Hillary is still out there.

Obama needs to go for it, throw caution to the wind.  There are political forces out there in the piney woods, and he should be afraid, very afraid.

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.

#By Ernest Canning, January 13:
#By Ernest Canning, January 13: “...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...”

Nasty, EC, really nasty, uhh!

“#By Tony Wicher, January 13: “Obviously Obama was telling the people at the anti-war rally that he was with them in opposing the Iraq war...”

Hardly, TW. If he was worried about being seen as a pacifist, he shouldn’t have been there. As it was, he was just exploiting the opportunity - jiving them, that is. Really strange.....”
---------------------------------------------------
Why is he “jiving”? It was an honest speech. He says he’s against the war but he’s not a pacifist. Both things are true and there is no contradiction.
I find your view of that speech twisted. It shows that you are unwilling to see things as they are, and fit everything into your preconceived ideology.

#By Ernest Canning, January 13: “...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...”

Nasty, EC, really nasty, uhh!

#By Tony Wicher, January 13: “Obviously Obama was telling the people at the anti-war rally that he was with them in opposing the Iraq war...”

Hardly, TW. If he was worried about being seen as a pacifist, he shouldn’t have been there. As it was, he was just exploiting the opportunity - jiving them, that is. Really strange.....

By Paracelsus, January 13: “I’ll tell you what I mean, “I hate my government.”

Its an unhappy feeling, isn’t it, Paracelsus? Depressing thoughts only result in powerlessness, though. They wear you out with their contempt and disregard because it drains you emotionally.

Thus, it creates negative changes in the endocrine system and that results in weakness, fear, resignation and finally total and abject cowering compliance.

I posted this on another thread. Just so no one is confused, (as I temporarily was) this is NOT the same piece by Bill Boyarsky as we’ve been discussing here. And, even though it’s attributed to Truthdig, (and probably properly so) I’ve not seen THIS piece posted on the TD site yet. So, this is actually from TruthOUT, (and they routinely do included pieces from TD on their site) and I thought I’d share it with you.

The Battleground of New Hampshire
By Bill Boyarsky
Truthdig

The war is so costly, no president will be able to tackle key domestic issues like health care until we exit Iraq.

Manchester, NH - When Hillary Clinton, seriously set back by the Iowa caucuses, landed in New Hampshire to resuscitate her presidential campaign, the first question from the audience was unsparingly blunt: “When will the troops come home?”

She replied, as she has done before, that she hopes to begin bringing them home a brigade or two a month, but will leave enough troops in Iraq to protect themselves, American civilians and Iraqis who have helped the United States. That’s not too much different from what has been proposed by Barack Obama and John Edwards.

The rest at the link:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010908E.shtml

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.”

I wanted to look at your link but the Yahoo server is saying not found. Can you supply the original Huffington Post link?

Just read this on Huff Post and thought it might add to the discussion
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080112/cm_huffpost/ 081211;_ylt=Aiav5QqmurZD.4oj7B.iP8us0NUE

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

By Tony Wicher, January 13: “Do you oppose all wars? I don’t.... the vague rhetoric of “change you can believe in” is wearing thin...”

Nevertheless, it was a strange speech to give to an anti-war rally, TW.

But, instead of simply pretendiong that “I have a dream”..... I had this dream that Obama actually mentioned THE ECONOMY!!!

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.

Under the so-called “free market”, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Marx was right about that at least. The only remedy for poverty is socialism.

Dearest Cyrena:

If I were a sexist (which I fully expect you to accuse me of), I would say you are getting hopelessly hysterical.

You say, “This is NOW, and it’s a whole new ball game, because we are on the brink of destruction, and I’m not sure if ANYONE can ‘save’ us, but I know that a continuation of Hillary policies at this time, ISN”T GOING TO DO IT.”

You have yet to articulate how Hillary’s policies are different from Obama’s.  Indeed, other than repeating his rhetoric, or giving generalities, you have dodged this question now for well over a week, on at least half a dozen threads.

You say, “You’ve got a hate campaign to run, and I will not interfere with it.”

At no point have I suggested, or even implied, that I “hate” Obama.  I do not.  I like him alot.  I just think he is getting a “free ride” on his rhetoric, and not being called to account for what words like “hope,” “change” and “turn the page” MEAN to him, his candidacy or his potential presidency. Indeed, this is TRULY an example of the pot calling the kettle black, since it is YOU who have been running a VERY overt “hate campaign” against Hillary.

You say, “...and I consistently evaluate my own opinions, based on the ever changing realities.”

Really?  Well, that’s a good thing.  So why is that when Hillary does it, you call it “flip-flopping” or “political convenience” or other cynical terms? And why haven’t I heard you say the same thing about Obama?  Or is he somehow “perfect” in this regard?

You say, “If you wanna spew hate propaganda, you can, if only because the 1st amendment provisions still exist...”

As noted, I challenge you to find a single word that I have said on ANY thread that indicates that I am “spewing hate” re Obama - or even comes close. Yet I would have NO problem going through half a dozen threads and finding continual, unrelenting hate-spewing from you re Hillary.

Better take the log out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of mine…

Peace.

Maani,

Thanks for your kind words.

Cyrena and I both like Kucinich and we have both been supporting Obama against Clinton for some time on the grounds that Obama could unify the Democratic party and build a national progressive coalition. Maybe I have been watching too much TV, but I was impressed by Hillary’s performance in New Hampshire, and also on Meet the Press today, and now I am wondering why she isn’t just as likely to be able to build such a coalition, and also whether a Clinton-Obama ticket would be a good way to go.

One point that will probably shock some people on this post concerns Zbigniew Brzezinski. I actually feel partially responsible for helping Brzezinski be Barack Obama’s foreign affairs advisor, and I’m proud of it. You will recall that Brzezinski introduced Obama at a foreign policy speech back in August and was heavily criticized by Alan Dershowitz and other Zionists or this. They accused Zbig of “anti-Semitism” and demanded that Obama repudiate him. I considered this charge as outrageous as the similar charge they leveled against Jimmy Carter and his book, “Palestine, Peace not Apartheid”, which I consider that if anything understates Israel;s violations of the human rights of Palestinians. I consider Israel to be a democracy in name only and Jewish supremacy state or a theocracy in reality. I believe support for Zionism is very bad for the United States as it makes us hated all over the world. I think Brzezinski’s views on the Middle East are Israel-neutral and his foreign policy is more likely to be good for this country than one recommended by Dershowitz. I also believe that Zionists are reactionaries who do not speak for the majority of American Jews, who are progressive Democrats. I was able to set up a contact between a a prominent progressive Rabbi and Dr. Brzezinski where he and Jimmy Carter were assured of the support of the progressive Jewish community. Since then I am happy to see that he has remained as Obama’s advisor.

I can hardly believe the credulous garbage being posted here today.........

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

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

#By Tony Wicher, January 13: “I have been supporting Obama for over a year because of his intelligent and courageous Iraq speech in October of 2002...”

This is the one in which he said “I don’t oppose all wars” three times at least..... as well as extolling the supposed virtues of “the crucible of the sword”.....

#By Liza, January 13: “Do you want a Drama Queen for president.... Clinton 92-2000 was nothing BUT drama...”

Talk about living in the past, uhh. Hillary’s a woman so she must be a “drama queen”??? Well, that’s half right..... then there are BO’s speeches, uhh.

By the way, guess who just discovered THE ECONOMY??? “You’re likable enough, Hillary” so I copied all of your policies, ha ha.......

• No, you DON’T “know” what you’re getting with Hillary (in the sense you mean it); you are PRESUMING that.  And this is the underlying failure of yours, and others’, positions here re Hillary: you are conflating your PERSONAL feelings about her with FACTS about her positions and policies

Oh, just STOP it Maani. I’ve already told you to quit telling me what I think, because you don’t know what I think, and you’re just an arrogant and obnoxious bore; A gadfly who tries to swoop in on unsuspecting people, and you’re revealed soon enough.

So, stop with the bullshit, and all of the attempts to play dr. philistine. Save it. I’ve already told you that I DO know what we’ll get with Hillary, and I’ll agree with Tony that I never gave a rat’s ass about whatever sexual antics Bill may or may not have been up to, and I’ve listened to HIM speak before on a variety of topics, and I was ALWAYS impressed by HIS intelligence.

I did NOT agree with every action or decision that HE made, but overall, I didn’t have any major complaints about his administration. However, that was THEN, and I speak only to how my OWN life was affected at the time. This is NOW, and it’s a whole new ball game, because we are on the brink of destruction, and I’m not sure if ANYONE can ‘save’ us, but I know that a continuation of Hillary policies at this time, ISN”T GOING TO DO IT.

So, stop arguing with me on this Maani. You’ve got a hate campaign to run, and I will not interfere with it. I actually prefer watching your types self-destruct. But you need to STOP telling me or anyone else, what we think, because I KNOW what I think, and I consistently evaluate my own opinions, based on the ever changing realities.

So I told you before, buzz off, and stay out of grown folks conversations. If you wanna spew hate propaganda, you can, if only because the 1st amendment provisions still exist in limited spaces and locations. But you can and SHOULD stop telling other folks what they think. If you’re tempted to carry out this same behavior in real time and space locations, in face to face interactions, somebody is going to kick your ass!!

“so little coverage (e.g., the race and gender factors are so much more compelling than poverty)” Poverty and the plight of the working/middle class constitute the 800 lbs gorilla in this nation.  We regularly hear about the 47 million working folks without health insurance.  We are now hearing about the millions who may lose their homes as a cover for the bail out of the financial industry.  We hear about the lack of savings.  We hear about the loss of jobs.  We hear about the number of folks who are about one paycheck away from being homeless.

Poverty and those who may easily become poor are the biggest threat to this consumer driven economy.  No health insurance?  One major medical incident and you may/will be bankrupt.  Those who earn a wage are forgotten by those who truly have.  Edwards speaks for us as does Kucinch.  But there is nothing sexy about trying to undo the economic rape committed under the guise of an ownership society.  In a massive loss of class awareness the working people vote for the very people who will put in place programs, policies, and regulations counter to the well being of the working class.  The MSM has presented the Horatio Alger story so often that many people still believe it can happen.

The ownership society means that them what own it can do what-ever-the-hell they want with it.  There is a myth of corporate citizenship and a social contract between the corps and society; between the government and it’s citizens.  Broken meaningless phrases.  The onslaught was really unleashed by the policies and practices of Ronald Wilson Regan.  Let’s close the asylums and turn the inmates out on the street.  Sure saved money and gave homelessness a helluva start.  Now we have veterans ....

The owners, that top couple of percent that have about a third of the income, are not threatened by the same calamities we face.  They have the money to buy their way out.  We don’t!

Poverty and its causes must be addressed.  Thank you John Edwards for doing so.

Tony:

You are a breath of fresh air here.  Thanks for joining us.  And your recent post, buried below as a reply, deserves to be repeated:

“I was there. I voted for Clinton twice. It was mostly the Republican smear machine that made it a “drama”. I certainly didn’t give a damn about Clinton’s sexual pecadillos. This country has lost its common decency for such things to be part of public discussion. The Clinton impeachment was a travesty. Clinton did a pretty good job of running the country, especially given the reactionary Republican Congress he had to deal with. We drove into a ditch with George Bush in 2000. You can talk about 28 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, but PEOPLE WHO THINK THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GEORGE W. BUSH AND HRC MUST BE BLINDED BY THEIR IDEOLOGIES.  As to Obama, he is going to have to make me believe he is significantly better than Hillary by taking stands that clearly distinguish him from Hillary. I don’t see him doing that right now. I have called his campaign to tell them this, and I get the feeling they are not listening.” (Emphasis mine.)

Setting aside the Kucinich discussion (which I fully support), you might as well be inside my brain re the Obama-Hillary discussion.  Your other posts similarly take the words right out of my mouth.

Thanks!

Cyrena:

You say, “The theoretical ‘difference’ between Hillary and Barak is that with Hillary, we KNOW what we’re getting…more of what we’ve had for 2 decades.”

No, you DON’T “know” what you’re getting with Hillary (in the sense you mean it); you are PRESUMING that.  And this is the underlying failure of yours, and others’, positions here re Hillary: you are conflating your PERSONAL feelings about her with FACTS about her positions and policies.

Indeed, you add, “We honestly DON’T know what we’re getting with Obama.” Wrong again.  We DO know what we will get with Obama, since his actual positions - as even some of your fellow Hillary non-supporters here have noted - are not all that different from Hillary’s on most of the major issues: Iraq, Iran, Israel, taxes, health care, energy, climate change, torture, etc.

Finally, you say, “I don’t believe any of the ‘connections’ that the less mentally stable among these posters in trying to give him..CFR, Zbrig, etc, etc.”

You don’t “believe?” What does THAT mean?  These are FACTS about Obama, whether you want to ACCEPT them or not.  Brzezinski IS his chief foreign policy advisor.  Obama IS a member of CFR (as are most of the candidates).  “Etc., etc.”

I can barely believe the depth of your willful ignorance about Obama, and your equally willful right-wing rhetoric about Hillary.  Indeed, I am FAR more likely to agree with those who see them as “two sides of the same coin” (or even the same side) than to consider them to be as far apart as you make them out to be.

Peace.

I would have to say at this point that a vote for Kucinich is a protest vote, which means a vote for a candidate who has no chance in order to make a statement. I could go that way on Feb. 5. Meanwhile, I am staying tuned, watching TV, listening to their speeches. I am actually starting to like Hillary more. It’s like she did prove herself in New Hampshire somehow, did “find her voice”. She sounds more like her own woman now, less dependent on Bill. I actually admire the way she’s held up under fire. I’m watching to see how Obama does.

Or join stalwart minority who are betting on the coin falling on edge.

I was there. I voted for Clinton twice. It was mostly the Republican smear machine that made it a “drama”. I certainly didn’t give a damn about Clinton’s sexual pecadillos. This country has lost its common decency for such things to be part of public discussion. The Clinton impeachment was a travesty. Clinton did a pretty good job of running the country, especially given the reactionary Republican Congress he had to deal with. We drove into a ditch with George Bush in 2000. You can talk about 28 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, but people who think there is no difference beween George W. Bush and HRC must be blinded by their ideologies. As to Obama, he is going to have to make me believe he is significantly better than Hillary by taking stands that clearly distinguish him from Hillary. I don’t see him doing that right now. I have called his campaign to tell them this, and I get the feeling they are not listening.

EC,

When Kucinich announced his candidacy, and said that “this time, I fully expect to win”, my heart wanted to believe, but my cynical old brain would not go along. I know well Chomsky’s theory of “manufacturing consent” in a corporate democracy. It seems that the media “anointed” Clinton, Obama and Edwards as “front runners” and “marginalized” everyone else - not only Kucinich and Gravel, but even Biden and Dodd and Richardson. How did this come about? Was it really deliberate control by corporate owners of the media, as Chomsky would have it, or is this just the way popularity contests work? Because that is what a democratic election is -a popularity contest. Those of us who study the issues are a minority. So we intellectuals are marginalized. We’re doomed, that’s all there is to it - doomed to watch a political “American Idol” forever.

I continue to make regular contributions to Kucinich, because even though he is not going to win, he is doing valuable work. Nevertheless, I continue to watch Hardball and other such shows with amusement, and on Feb. 5 I may find myself leaning more to either Hillary or Obama. I guess I’m one of those “undecided” voters at this point. But I tell you what: on Feb. 5, if I am exactly balanced, I’ll vote for Kucinich.

Tony,

Please don’t do it!! The Hillary thing that is. If you’re frustrated with Obama, take the plunge, and give Kucinich your vote. Seriously. What harm can their be in it? I mean, it’s like Ernest said, if enough of us break away from the pack, and follow what we know to be in ALL of our best interests, we might have a shot at survival.

With Obama, my honest take it that he is simply being overly cautious. That may or may not be a good thing, but in his position, I don’t see that he has another choice. So to be frank, I don’t think we’re GOING to hear a whole lot more from him about his intentions, UNLESS he were to get the nomination. So, if that’s what you’re waiting on, it would just be best to vote your conscience, and we’ll see where it all shakes out.

I have to respectfully disagree with those who suggest that Hillary and Barak are the opposite sides of the same coin, but I also accept that I could be wrong, because of the very thing that we’re talking about. He has NOT stated any radically different policies or positions. Not whether or not that is political manipulation, (to an extent it has to be) or that he really is the opposite side of the coin is something that we can’t honestly say either way at this point. There’s nothing (in my opinion) that says he IS, and there’s nothing that says he is NOT. He walks a fine line.

I too was inspired by Obama originally, but I was realistic enough to know that his would be the typical fine line (plus some) of the political games, once he decided to run. There is no way to get around the ugliness of US politics, which is why Kucinich has been so marginalized. We have NOT been a nation of ‘people of substance’ for at least 40 years. If that were the case, we would have elected Kucinich in 2004. I voted for him in THAT primary, but others had already ‘decided’ on Kerry.

The theoretical ‘difference’ between Hillary and Barak is that with Hillary, we KNOW what we’re getting…more of what we’ve had for 2 decades…Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. We honestly DON’T know what we’re getting with Obama, and I admit that. Although, in the same breath, I should say that I don’t believe any of the ‘connections’ that the less mentally stable among these posters in trying to give him..CFR, Zbrig, etc, etc.

Still, Obama is ‘untested’ in the overall scheme of things. So yeah, that would be a ‘roll of the dice’ if we want to call it that. It still isn’t the same as accepting more of what we already know has put us on the path to destruction, which is right around the corner.

I think of it like this. We’ve got a fatal illness, and it’s advanced to the point where radical treatment is required, to at least STOP the devastation –first-. And, then…try to begin reversing it. I don’t know if Obama can do any of that. I know that Hillary will NOT. There’s no logical reason to believe that she’s going to even stop it, let alone reverse any damage.

On the other hand, Dennis Kucinich can. So, it’s like you go to the doc. He says..you have cancer. Your cells are eating each other up, or whatever. Now, we can send you over to this other doc/specialist, and he can STOP the on-going destruction. Then, he can start you on a treatment program, that will eventually repair the damage. (Kucinich). OR you can try another guy, who may or may not stop and then repair, because we don’t really have a track record for that one.(Obama) OR, you can keep doing what you’re doing, (nothing-Hillary) and you’ve got 6 months to a year. 

And, there you have it. Now you only have to convince the rest of ‘we the people’ that it’s not just YOU that has the fatal illness, with only 6 months to a year, but ALL of us. And, if we don’t ALL get ‘the treatment’ we’re all going down.

TW:  The only reason Dennis Kucinich has “no chance to win” is that otherwise intelligent individuals like yourself have, from day one, bought into the corporate media propaganda that he has “no chance to win.”

Real change will “never” occur until the vast majority of Americans, the working and middle classes, come to understand that the power of the ballot is effective only when they vote based on the substance of the candidate.  You have but one vote in the primary.  Why waste it on a corporate shill--Obama, Clinton (take your pick)?  Have the courage to break away from the herd and support Dennis Kucinich.  Unless you are a resident of either Iowa or New Hampshire, it is not too late to do so.

Do you want a Drama Queen for president? 

If so, vote for Hillary.  Don’t believe me?  Clinton 92-2000 was nothing BUT drama.

Tell me again why Obama should like Hillary?  Telling her that she is “likeable enough” is probably the best he could do without retching.

The op-ed writers should not be defining this campaign as they have in the last week.  Everything has been about speculation on whether or not Hillary might actually have feelings and whether or not Obama is too vague as Slick Willie and Hillary would have us believe.

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hillary is so hoping to catch Obama in one of those Howard Dean “hee haw” moments.  She so wants him to say the one wrong thing that will finish his campaign. 

In the meantime, she and Slick Willie wag their tongues saying anything they please.  I’m tired of it.

Did you notice that the saga of poor Britney Spears has had to go back to the Entertainment pages?  That is because Hillary is providing the drama now.

Go away, Clintons.

Don’t worry about gender or race by the time the two parties select their candidates and perhaps a third party enters the election, the US will be undergoing a serious recession----all the signs are there.  The economy will always trump gender and race.  Things will get quite interesting in about 4-6 months when the recession will be quire evident.  Bloomberg understands this and a severe recession will booster his chances to dictate terms in the final selection.

I have been supporting Obama for over a year because of his intelligent and courageous Iraq speech in October of 2002 which in my mind set him apart from all other Democratic candidates except Kucinich. I agree with Kucinich much more than any other Democratic candidate but I knew he had no chance to win the nomination. Obama seemed capable of reuniting the party and the country, of building a broad-based progressive coalition.

But I am getting tired of hearing about “change you can believe in” over and over without any clear stands on specific issues. The word “change has become meaningless for me. In fact, Hillary is beginning to sound more honest than Obama. I could well end up voting for Hillary on Feb. 5 unless Obama starts to define himself much more clearly.

To Maani and the other posters taken in by image:  Hillary & Obama are two sides of the same corporate coin.  If you believe their hype, you will join the crowd that keeps voting against its own interests.

You make some excellent points, Cyrena.  And you’re spot on about NAFTA being only part of the problem.  Actually, NAFTA is a logical extension of the economic system in place.  But that economic system has been in place for more than 150 years with almost no change; moreover, Dickens was writing the same critiques of it then as are written now. 

This is not to say that capitalism is bad, but our method of implementing capitalism continues to be based on the realities of the 19th century, which causes us to be stumbling into the 21st.

When the industrial revolution started, labor was relatively expensive.  The opposite was true for resources.  And waste hardly mattered.  Consequently, the drive towards efficiency was one of simple economics, i.e. produce the product at the lowest possible cost.

This model, however, is dependent on externalizing a great many costs inherent in the supply chain.  For a long time such externalization was easy, but the times th