Cyrena:

You’ve GOT to be kidding!  Here is your quote:

“Let’s note the differences. Obama is black and about 12 years younger than Hillary Clinton. He’s from a middle class background, and he started his political career as a CIVIL RIGHTS attorney…From there, he did community activist work…and he was also a professor of law at DePaul University. Academics don’t make much either, not even the tenured ones, and he wasn’t. Clearly they do earn better than the minimum wage, but let’s be real, it’s nothing compared to corporate legal work. My point? Barak Obama has simply NOT been part of the corporate establishment, and he’s not independently wealthy…The MAJORITY of Obama’s funds however, have come from small campaign donations from the public at large, and there’s no getting around that.”

Okay.  Let’s actually LOOK at the claimed “differences”:

“Hillary is white and about 12 years older than Obama.  She’s from a middle-class background, and started her political [N.B. I think you mean “professional”] career as an attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund and the Carnegie Council on Children.  Prior to this she did community activist work, and afterward taught law at the University of Arkansas.  [N.B.  She was not tenured either.]  She then went on to work for the Rose Law Firm, specializing in patent infringement and intellectual property law.  [N.B. Obama worked as a corporate lawyer at Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, working on discrimination claims and voting rights cases.]”

To this point, Obama and Hillary were BOTH EQUALLY part of, or NOT part, of the “corporate establishment.”

“He is not independently wealthy.”  Bill and Hillary were not “independently wealthy” eiter when he ran for office.  And the Clintons’ accumulated “wealth,” although certainly larger than Obama’s, is from the same primary source - book advances and royalties - though Bill’s speaking fees are added on their side.

“The MAJORITY of Obama’s funds however, have come from small campaign donations from the public at large…”

Actually, the same is true of Hillary’s campaign donations: i.e., the vast majority of the over $100 million she has raised came from “the public” and NOT from lobbyists, PACs or other business or industry donations, which make up as little a TOTAL PERCENTAGE of her campaign income as they do Obama’s.  You could look it up.

Peace.

And this year, I think you might just be able to win bert…at least if it’s the Democrat win that you want.

Now if you’re looking for a Repug that looks like Hillary’s identical twin, then you might be disappointed. It would appear that the DEMS WILL win, but it will be with a REAL democratic candidate.

Here’s the latest..Maine now as well..

Obama Wins in Maine; Clinton Replaces Her Campaign Manager
•  “VIRGINIA BEACH — Senator Barack Obama racked up his fourth decisive victory this weekend, winning the Maine caucuses on Sunday, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton replaced her campaign manager and longtime aide in the biggest shakeup of her campaign to date.”

•  “Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, replaced Patti Solis Doyle, who led her campaign since it began last year and whom she regarded almost as an adopted daughter. In her place, she named another longtime aide, Maggie Williams.”

•  “On Sunday, Mrs. Clinton — who like Mr. Obama was campaigning in the so-called Potomac region — did not mention the weekend’s nominating contests, focusing instead on Senator John McCain, the likely Republican nominee.”

•  “In Manassas, Va., where 1,500 people filled a gymnasium to capacity and 2,000 people waited outside, she told the audience that she was the strongest candidate on homeland security and foreign policy.”

Come ON Hill…we’re pretty sick of the homeland security stuff, seeing as how that’s just another one of the kleptocracies in this whole new structure that king george built, and we knew it’s just another inefficient and multiple bureaucracy. As for foreign policy, she should be promising to select some brilliant foreign policy person, because she doesn’t know shit about foreign policy. She has NO experience in foreign policy, unless she’s counting that time back in the day when she used to drop in on the little villages in Africa. But, that was a long time ago, and certainly didn’t involve running a war, or better yet STOPPING some wars.

So, her advisers have really jacked her up, if that’s what they have her focusing on. Homeland security and foreign policy. Gee. Or, maybe she insisted, and that’s what jacked her up.

Bert’s statistics…

I admittedly interpret these ‘statistics’ as more partisan/rhetorical innuendo, packaged to ‘appear’ to be an objective comparison of ‘facts’.  Let me explain…

First, it is absolutely no secret, let alone a ‘surprise’ or any deep dark hidden revelation, that Barak Obama has received political contributions from corporate entities, and it would be incredibly naïve for someone to claim that he had not. I’ve never heard anyone make such claims.

The politically pragmatic reality is that ALL candidates, and/or parties, have received contributions from corporate entities/Wall Street, for probably the last 40 or so years. In my own former industry, (commercial aviation) my former employer contributed to both the Democratic and the Repuglican Parties at EACH AND EVERY ELECTION CYCLE. As a general practice, (at least based on the statistics that were available while I was still in the ‘racket’) they contributed fairly evenly to both parties. Now of course in the past 8 or so years, I suspect they’ve contributed far more to the repugs, but I don’t have any documented proof of that. It’s just a guess, based on the fact that they are a typical corporate entity of the 21st Century in the US. Read….very greedy and exploitive, and likely to overwhelmingly support an administration that would allow for them to gain even larger profits. (if that can even be imagined).

That said, it is NOT a surprise that the top candidates for either party, would have a measure of corporate support. At least SOME portion of the campaign funding IS provided by the party itself. How much either of these two have collected from the Democratic Party is not something I know. However, common sense tells us that Barak Obama simply does NOT have the same corporate money connections that Hillary Clinton has, and he CERTAINLY doesn’t have her acquired personal wealth. So, lets just be really clear on that. He is NOT an ‘establishment’ candidate.

Let’s note the differences. Obama is black and about 12 years younger than Hillary Clinton. He’s from a middle class background, and he started his political career as a CIVIL RIGHTS attorney. I’m not sure if you are aware of the HUGE difference in the incomes of Corporate vs. Public Interest lawyers, but it is HUGE. From there, he did community activist work, (it doesn’t pay anything) and he was also a professor of law at DePaul University. Academics don’t make much either, not even the tenured ones, and he wasn’t. Clearly they do earn better than the minimum wage, but let’s be real, it’s nothing compared to corporate legal work.

My point? Barak Obama has simply NOT been part of the corporate establishment, and he’s not independently wealthy. So, as much as I hate it, and despite all of the broken promises of ‘campaign reform’ one can simply NOT run for office in the country without a considerable campaign ‘war chest’. And, if one is not independently wealthy, (like the Bush Dynasty = BIG special interest) then it comes down to contributions. The MAJORITY of Obama’s funds however, have come from small campaign donations from the public at large, and there’s no getting around that.

Now from what I’ve read recently, Obama has raised an incredible amount of money in January, and Hillary has recently given herself/campaign a $5 million dollar loan.

Hillary’s Curious Campaign Loan

“By giving her campaign a $5 million loan, Hillary Clinton opened herself to questions not only about the financial health of her presidential bid but also about how she and her husband amassed a fortune over the past seven years. A window opened on “Clinton Inc.” “

For the full story, go to Consortiumnews.com.

Meantime, over the weekend, Obama has won the Democratic primaries in Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Maine.

Would that be ‘special interest’ or ‘we the people’?

Sensitive are we? And inventive too.  i didn’t see any name calling in TheRealFish’s post. In fact he presented a logical argument against nominating Hillary so that we may in fact “keep [our] eye on the prize - [and win] in November.” You may disagree with his conclusion, and that is fine, but lecturing the rest of us on humility and the fallibility of self-righteousness is anything but humble.

If you’ll permit me to do a little lecturing of my own:

One of the distinguishing characteristics of those who post here is that, like the macrocosm of the United States itself, we have differing opinions on many things.  Some of us are more colorful than others, have different styles of discourse, even graduated levels of open-mindedness—and we all get to express them in our own fashion. That’s what is so great about it. We’re not bickering kindergartners who need a timeout, we’re a rowdy bunch of disaffected patriots unhappy with state of the Republic. You’re mistaken if you see us as tearing the Democratic Party to tatters by our discourse, rather we are reveling in our democracy. If you’d prefer a place where everyone is going to sing in four part harmony of Hillary’s triumphalism, you might try <a >here</a>.

Nice slogan by the way: “The arrogance of Hype.” You should make up some bumper stickers, i’d buy one.

This “vitriol” that you disdain isn’t aimed at the noble aspirations of RFK et al, it attacks the sleight of hand of saying a thing and having a history of doing another thing.

Regardless of the outcome of the primaries, the Dems will take the white house. i’m just tired of the same old faces, the same old promises, the same old rationalizations, the same old deceptions.

In the inimitable words of John Cleese: “And now, for something completely different.”

Bert…

On the below, we can DEFINITELY agree.

•  I just prefer to deal with facts and not raw emotion in my debates.

I no longer have any patience at all for raw emotion in debates. Seriously, without substance based on some objectivity, the exercise amounts to nothing more than a waste of time and energy, and I don’t have the luxury of that.

On this:

•  And if you are using this line of reasoning to support Obama’s vote to continue the war, why can’t you at least entertain the thought that this is exactly why Hillary voted for the war in the first place.

You’ve got at least one point that I’ll ‘entertain’ except of course I do still get bogged down in the semantics of it. Because, I don’t see Obama’s two votes for the funding of a war already long in place, as a vote to ‘continue the war’. I see it as two votes to continue the funding, so I will concede to that much, EVEN THOUGH I have not personally researched the specifics of the bill/resolution/whatever else it was, that was put to a vote. So, maybe when I have time, I’ll try to get an idea of what was at stake on those particular occasions, that may have prompted Obama to vote to the additional chunk of funding, which is NOT a vote to ‘continue the war’ and I am highly suspicious of that kind of language, for the very reason that we’ve just addressed above about raw emotion in debates.

Now, it could in fact turn out that Obama had no reason that would be particularly acceptable to my own anti-war sentiments, REGARDLESS of political expediency, since that is my primary gripe about the war overall. It’s been a political decision by a corrupt regime, to gain unprecedented political control, not to mention the trillions of dollars that the ‘war OF terror’ has cost us. IF it turns out that way, I will be the first to wave my fists at him, and give him a thorough cussing out. Promise.

That said, my point is that I am not triangulating, or playing some game of ‘favorites’ here. It’s just not my thing. I’m a true believer in calling a spade a spade, and I have expressed displeasure and/or disagreement at least, with decisions that he’s made in the past. However, they are myopic and they are isolated from the much larger anti-war ideology. And, Barack Obama is anti-war, and he was forcefully and vocally opposed to this war long before it was begun.

Besides that,I always consider the larger picture, and/or the potential consequences of anything. I was overwhelmingly opposed to this war from the beginning, because I knew it to be the farce that it was, and I knew what it would become. I think I mentioned that this was why the UN would NOT approve it, (although they DID provide the requisite resolution for the first bush war on Iraq). Now again, if Hillary Clinton was willing to APPROVE this illegality from the beginning, and has CONTINUED to do so, without ever acknowledging the illegality of her initial vote, by even saying so much as ‘I goofed”, then she cannot be the president.

For you to say that just because Obama did NOT have the opportunity to vote because he wasn’t in Congress, (despite the tons and tons of public commentary that he made against the war BEFORE it was approved) is in fact triangulation in my book. If you heard him say that ‘I don’t know what I would have done’ and that’s important to you…OK. But as my dad used to say, “If –IF- was a ‘skiff’, it would have been buried. (yes, he likes to clown around).

Still, you get my point. After the fact ‘ifs’ don’t mean much to me. And, historians (by profession) generally hate the question. So, “if” Obama actually said that, long after he’d already spoken out forcefully against the greater question of starting it, then it was a dumb thing for him to say, because he knows the law, and he knows it’s an illegal war, even if the morality of it could have been questioned at the time.

BO has also positioned himself wisely by not defunding the war. He is now immune to the argument that he would leave 150,000 troops over in Iraq without any money and no plan to withdraw. i’m sorry, but your argument would hold more water if you were attacking BO and the rest of Congress on their failure to impeach the president and key administrators, replace them and instigate a plan to withdraw. High and dry is the indefensible position.

I’ve always felt the Clintons worked harder to feather their own nests than to create a stable American economy.  I will never forgive former President Clinton for being the one who signed NAFTA and GATT, thus allowing any and all USA based businesses to move overseas and hire slave labor.  At the end of his term, Clinton also pardoned three convicted Hassidics from the Hassidics-only town of New Square, NY, AFTER they had been convicted of defrauding the US government (US taxpayers) of millions of dollars.  He also pardoned Mark Rich, an international financier who owed the US millions of dollars.  Pragmatics?  Only when it came to themselves. When Ms. Clinton moved to NY and ran for the senate seat, all but 10 of the voting Hassidics voted for her.  Coincidence or gratitude?  I can’t think of anything more disastrous than sending the Clintons back to the White House for 8 more years. As an Independent, I’ll take my chances with someone else for president.

And Obama’s acceptance of special intrest money is not especially disturbing in this regard?

Here is a list (from opensecrets.org, a highly reputable, neutral, non-partisan site for this type of info) of the money that Hillary and Obama have taken from “business” (these are top contributors):

Goldman Sachs: Hillary, $407,000; Obama, $421,000

Morgan Stanley: Hillary, $362,000; Obama, $155,000

UBS AG: Hillary, $0; Obama, $296,000

Citigroup: Hillary, $350,000; Obama, $221,000

Lehman Bros: Hillary, $237,000; Obama, $250,000

National Amusements: Hillary, $210,000; Obama, $245,000

JP Morgan Chase: Hillary, $202,000; Obama, $240,000

Skadden Arps: Hillary, $167,000; Obama, $196,000

Top three industries:

Lawyers/Law Firms:
Hillary, $11.7 million; Obama, $9.5 million

Securities/Investments:
Hillary, $5.8 million; Obama, $5.2 million

Real Estate:
Hillary, $4.8 million; Obama, $2.7 million

Cyrena:

Re Bert’s comments, you said, “You’re also doing some more spinning by the suggestion that HIS VOTE – alone, ‘kept the war going” and/or caused the death of additional troops.”

NOW who’s spinning?  What Bert said was, “Obama also voted twice to keep funding the war. That kept it going and has added to the numbers of dead.”

Where do you see the word “alone?”  Bert clearly meant that Obama’s vote ADDED TO the fact that the war kept going and people kept dying.

“People in glass houses…”

Peace.

Cyrena writes:  ...since its all packaged in the same funding appropriation)[Obama’s vote] would have IMMEDIATELY been denounced as soft on terror or NOT supporting the troops.

Exactly. And if you are using this line of reasoning to support Obama’s vote to continue the war, why can’t you at least entertain the thought that this is exactly why Hillary voted for the war in the first place. Cynical politics? Triangulation? Maybe. Probably. But no more cynical and no more triangulation than Obama’s. They are both politicans and politicans are by defintion crafty. Support who you like best. But be honest as to why.

Cyrena writes: WRONG bert these are NOT his own words, but rather how YOU’VE chosen to cherry pick and twist them.

The following is from Infowar.com and written by Paul Sheet, Nov. 1, 2007. I encourage you to go to that web site and read the entire post. This is no love Hillary piece or site. It is pure 100% anti-war. Or better yet, go to the original source of the quote the New York Times, July 26, 2004.

BEGIN QUOTE

“But, as Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd accurately noted, Team Obama “forgot to celebrate another anniversary. Last July 26th marked the third anniversary of the New York Times story in which Obama admitted that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq resolution had he been serving in the United States Senate at the time of the vote.” Dodd quoted directly from the Times story:
In a recent interview, [Obama] declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time. ‘But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. WHAT WOULD I HAVE DONE? I DON’T KNOW.’ What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made’” (New York Times, 26 July, 2004).
Interesting. Seeking to exploit majority antiwar sentiment that he has repeatedly defied (see below), Obama hammers away again and again at Clinton and Edwards for making a terrible war-authorization vote that (he confessed) he might well have made if he’d had access to the same “Senate intelligence reports” Clinton, Kerry and Edwards possessed to such great effect.”

END QUOTE

“What would I have done? I don’t know.” These are Obama’s own words. I did not cherry pick or twist them. I don’t mind if you disagree with me. In fact, I love a spirited debate. I just prefer to deal with facts and not raw emotion in my debates.

Bert writes:

•  “…SO IN HIS OWN WORDS HE IS SAYING MAYBE I MIGHT HAVE VOTED YES FOR THE WAR AND MAYBE I MIGHT NOT HAVE VOTED NO FOR THE WAR.”..

WRONG bert…these are NOT his own words, but rather how YOU’VE chosen to cherry pick and twist them. If he had intel, blah, blah. I didn’t have access to the same intel either, but I KNEW it was an immoral war, and I KNEW that it was an ILLEGAL war, based on the fact that the bushies were UNABLE TO SECURE a resolution from the UN. Seeing as how Barack Obama is an attorney, HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AS WELL! It is not rocket science. It’s the law, and it’s available to anyone who knows how to read.

So, let’s repeat this, Barack Obama has been, from long before this war of aggression was actually launched, vocally OPPOSED to the war, and he has never retreated from that position. He opposed it then, and he’s opposed it since, and he opposes it now. EVEN if he believed that ‘intel’ may have made him consider the morality of it, he STILL KNEW that is was ILLEGAL. That’s basic fact. It’s illegal because the US acted in violation of International Law. Period. Dot. End of discussion.

So, you’re simply caught at the same thing that other deceitful propagandists are caught at, and easily exposed as such.

You do the same thing here…

•  “….Obama also voted twice to keep funding the war. That kept it going and has added to the numbers of dead. As far as I am concerned that is the same as voting for the war. He can’t have it both ways….”

In reality, it is NOT ‘the same as voting for the war’ and you have no idea what may or may not have been included in those funding operations, that involved more than “the war”. You’re also doing some more spinning by the suggestion that HIS VOTE – alone, ‘kept the war going” and/or caused the death of additional troops. In short, your dishonesty is showing again, because we all know damn good and well, that the MAJORITY of Congress voted to not only authorize the war, (Hillary among them) as well as to continue the funding.

We also know that anyone who did NOT vote to continue the funding, (which would be not just Iraq, but Afghanistan as well, since it’s all packaged in the same funding appropriation) would have IMMEDIATELY been denounced as ‘soft on terror’ or NOT ‘supporting the troops’.

In short bert, you’re full of shit.

Mike Mid-City writes: The difference between Hill and Barack is Barack can look you in the eye and say, “I have never voted for an immoral war.” Hillary can’t.

Obama was not in the Senate when that vote was taken and has said that he did not have access to the intel that Senators had at the time and so he does not know how he would have voted had he actually been there.

SO IN HIS OWN WORDS HE IS SAYING MAYBE I MIGHT HAVE VOTED YES FOR THE WAR AND MAYBE I MIGHT NOT HAVE VOTED NO FOR THE WAR.

Obama is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to have it both ways.

Obama also campaigned for the Senate saying he was opposed to the Patriot Act. Yet when he got to the Senate one of his very first votes, in fact I think it was his first, was to vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. He voted without comment, without speaking out against it on the floor of the Senate, or without offering any amendment to the Patriot Act.

Obama also voted twice to keep funding the war. That kept it going and has added to the numbers of dead. As far as I am concerned that is the same as voting for the war. He can’t have it both ways.

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

The early ballot issue is moot. Hillary beat Obama on votes cast on election day by 5%. I believe it was 49% to 44%.

Mike:

You continue to misinterpret what I’ve said, and put words in my mouth.

“Your understanding of a Jesus who would support someone who supported an unjustified war is not kind of pathetic but pathetic in the extreme.”

At NO point have I suggested that Jesus would support ANYONE.  In fact, I have consistently stated that Jesus was apolitical (from the point of view of political systems), and would not be involved in politics at all.

How you can conflate “forgiveness” with “support” is beyond me.  It is as if you cannot separate the two.

As an aside, as you continue to chastise me for my support of Hillary, you have STILL not come up with a good reason why Obama is any different since, while it is true that he SPOKE OUT against the war, his ACTIONS once he got in the Senate - his continued votes to fund that war - ALSO caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

You can’t have it both ways.  Either both candidates are complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, or neither of them are.

Peace.  (Not a meaningless afterthought, but a way of life…)

MMC:

I am not sure what you mean by “mysterious.”  The vast majority of people here use monikers that may or may not be their real names.  Very few of them divulge personal details about themselves, for very good reason; i.e., one simply doesn’t know if there are true “wackadoos” on these boards who might not stop here.  And as one who has been threatened numerous times by telephone after letters I wrote were published in various newspapers and magazines, I am acutely aware of this.

If it is simply basic background you are seeking, that is not a problem (though I know I am simply giving you and others fodder for your ad hominem, invective-filled cannons).

I am the middle of three sons born to atheist Jewish parents (i.e., Jewish by birth, no “spirutuality” of any type in the household), raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.  My parents (father deceased, mother alive) were both Ph.D.-level college professors.  They were both political progressives, and we were raised in an intellectual, cultured, rationalist, empiricist household.

Re politics, I attended my first anti-war rally at 8, and my second at 10, when I was tear-gassed for the first time.  I attended every anti-war rally in DC until the war was over.  I am trained through “Peacekeeper” (highest) level in non-violent civil disobedience.  I was active in the anti-nuclear weapons/power issue, during which I was arrested and jailed a few times during civil disobedience actions, spending time in jail with (among others) the Berrigan Brothers and Helen Caldicott.  I was on the Executive Board during the merging of SANE (anti-nuclear power) and FREEZE (anti-nuclear weapons), working closely with (among others) Peter Yarrow.  I have been a local community activist for over 20 years, as a tenant activist, block association member, community board member, precinct council vice president, and other positions.

Re “faith,” my father was a Marxist, so for him religion was “the opium of the masses.”  My mother is a scientist, so for her religion is “just so much hooey.”  So, no, I was not “indoctrinated” into religion at a young age and raised in it.

I became a “believer” at 19 after four years as a spiritual “seeker” (i.e., interested in ALL faiths, and studying them), and was baptised at 22.  I then spent two decades learning and growing as a Christian, but maintaining most of my rationalist upbringing.  In 2002, I underwent what I call a “personal Pentecost,” which led me to into the ministry.  I undertook a deep ministerial program under the mentorship of four ministers with over 100 years of ministry between them.  I was ordained in 2003, and have remained an active minister since then, with my primary ministries being outreach to and advocacy for the homeless; counseling, both in-faith (i.e., crises in faith, fallen away) and general (i.e., drug addiction, alcoholism, domestic violence, family, etc.); and Bible teaching, both individual and group.

I’m not sure what else you are looking for, but if you have specific requests, simply let me know.  I have nothing to hide.

Peace.  (For real…)

In Hillary Clinton we have a daughter of a Chicago crime boss, Hugh Rodham. This is key to understanding the phenomenon of Arkancide. In McCain we have a man who acted in such bad faith against his fellow soldiers in North Vietnam, that Jane Fonda looks good in comparison. McCain also has a temper that even scares his fellow Republican Senators. It is as if we only had a choice between Nero or Caligula running for office. Neither candidate gives me in confidence over troop withdrawal in the Middle East. Both candidates support liberal immigration policies that would include a “pathway to citizenship” for those who “live in the shadows”. I suggest that people stock up on food, guns and ammo.

Please, don’t label those of us who are not on board with Obama as stupid or not “hearing” or “understanding” that the Republicans are divided, or being stupid in general on this or any issue. I did not start out supporting Hillary. My first choice was Russ Feingold, but he decided not to run. Then I backed Edwards. I switched briefly to Chris Dodd because he was the only Democrat who became a member of the vertebrae species when he worked so tirelessly to keep telecom giants from getting retroactive immunity.

You are engaging in the very type of name calling and divisiveness that prompted me to write in the first place. If this continues through out the primary season only the Republicans will benefit. Only the Republicans will win. Republicans will not be the only party that is divided. The Democrats will be too. And then you will have only yourself to blame if this type of divisive name calling so damages the party that we cannot win in November.

Keep your eye on the prize - winning in November.

In terms of positions, in terms of where campaign money comes from there is not a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and Obama. There are some differences in terms of experience and which of the many competing groups and ideologies that makes up the Democratic Party each candidate appeals to. And there are pros and cons with regard to these two items. But our campaigning should not so alienate those diverse groups that we fracture ourselves in the process. Again, ad hominem insults are not called for in any circumstance.

Over the years I have learned that a good dose of humility often serves well. Our personal estimate of what is right or best is “...liable to error and that we owe our fellows that extra bit of consideration which leaves margin for that error.” [Roberta Claiborne, Our Marvelous Native Tongue.] If we don’t allow for that then the audacity of hope is just an empty slogan and becomes the arrogance of hype.

CY:

You keep referring to “Hill-the-business-shill.”  And like MMC with his “Hillary gave the dumbest president in history the power to start a pre-emptive war,” you are becoming a Johnny-one-note. And a wrong note at that.

Here is a list (from opensecrets.org, a highly reputable, neutral, non-partisan site for this type of info) of the money that Hillary and Obama have taken from “business” (these are top contributors):

Goldman Sachs: Hillary, $407,000; Obama, $421,000

Morgan Stanley: Hillary, $362,000; Obama, $155,000

UBS AG: Hillary, $0; Obama, $296,000

Citigroup: Hillary, $350,000; Obama, $221,000

Lehman Bros: Hillary, $237,000; Obama, $250,000

National Amusements: Hillary, $210,000; Obama, $245,000

JP Morgan Chase: Hillary, $202,000; Obama, $240,000

Skadden Arps: Hillary, $167,000; Obama, $196,000

Top three industries:

Lawyers/Law Firms:
Hillary, $11.7 million; Obama, $9.5 million

Securities/Investments:
Hillary, $5.8 million; Obama, $5.2 million

Real Estate:
Hillary, $4.8 million; Obama, $2.7 million

Thus, for all intents and purposes, they are virtually equal.  So get off it already.

Peace.

There is what appears to be one pragmatic point that Clinton supporters also do not hear or understand: The Republican party is extremely divided — in great disarray.

Regardless whether a Democrat believes in the supposed practicality embodied in Hilary or the hope embodied in Barak, having a Clinton for the last-person-standing candidate will unify the fractured Repugs in a way hardly anything else will.

Having her become the flag bearer in the fall may be the single most galvanizing thing that could happen for the Repugs. It may be the more assured way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Repugs would unite and attack with the wild abandon of berserkers with another Clinton in their sights.

And the soft center of the electorate could easily be pulled along the tracks of the “straight talk express.” It’s happened often enough over the past 30 years, that anyone taking a clear-eyed, calm look at the history of our elections over this span should not be able to miss that simple truth.

We could find ourselves with another four years, and who knows how many more federal court or Supreme Court justices in place, under the helm of one more Republican president.

To my eyes at least, looking over the current situation, that is the real pragmatic guiding principle in making our choices: If we unite them, we may lose. If we keep them divided, it would be difficult to do anything but win back our frayed democracy.

For me the issues at stake are beyond economics or simple ideology. The very structure of our democracy has been almost completely destroyed by the neocon invasion of the past 30 years. The pillaging of the Constitution is far worse than threats posed by Al Qaeda. The privatizing of core government services has dessicated our economy and our safety.

History instructs. Superpowers across time fall from within, not by external attack.

We may have only one last chance before the damage is totally irreparable. Those are the stakes, and we not only must choose who to bear the banner, but also have a certain level of power over the very unity of the opposition.

That is the pragmatic choice.

“Hillary Clinton is still standing for the simple reason that she has convinced millions of core Democratic voters that she will stand up for them.”

Get real, Marie. Neither candidate is saying what needs to be said about our major problems: Iraq, poverty, health care, Bush criminality, global warming, etc. They know that to do so would open up the gates of hell and the fiends with money and power would devour them.

Because the power of money and media connections are poised to murder constructive and truly pragmatic campaigns, candidates are extremely timid about championing policies that are really needed.

Neither Hillary or Barack propose a needed one-payer health care system because HMOs and drug companies would crucify them, the current purveyors of an extremely overpriced and ineffective system. And this doesn’t speak of the campaign money that deters such talk.  Looking at superficial issues, we allow primary candidates to play their campaigns with great caution and staged appearances.

Another truism that does not favor a Hillary ticket:  Amy fails to mention the vindictive nature of neo-conservatives toward the Clintons. Many neocons would rather destroy our country than work with the Clintons.

They reduced Bill Clinton’s ability to handle our problems while they were sniping at him, impeaching him for oral sex.

How many of the above problems would they let Hillary solve. Because of the mad-dog neocons, we can’t nominate Hillary (not her fault). We must have Obama, perhaps our only chance of uniting and preserving our union.

Did you know Hugh Rodham, Hillary’s father, was a mobster? Fast forward to the 50 minute mark.

http://www.nw0.info/files/Radio/Alex Jones Radio Archive/2008/February/aj_2008-02-07.mp3

^ an opinion; but this article is rubbish.

Kucinich has voiced his opposition from the start and has NOT supported funding the war at all.  Where is he?

I’m not for Obama.  Who can we vote for who has steadfastly remained against our war machine?

Bert:

Perfectly said.  Bravo.

Peace.

Blueshift:

I’m not sure where you got the idea that the $5 million came from Bill.  I am not even seeing this on some of the right-wing blogs.  Even if the loan is from a joint account, Hillary’s has contributed significantly to that account through books advances and royalties, salaries, and other income.

Unless you have some concrete information to the contrary, don’t engage in insupportable speculation.

Peace.

Obama claims he was right on the war from the beginning. That is a meaningless statement. I was against the war from the beginning too. ladeedah!!!!!!!! However, once BO actually got to the Senate he supported the war in Iraq too because twice he voted yes to continue funding the war. He was elected to stop the war. Quickest way to do that is defund the thing. But NO! BO voted to continue the war and to fund the war. He is no different than Hillary on this issue in terms of votes. His statement is not a vote and does not count. If Hillary is the nominee the war is not an issue. She has positioned herself wisely in terms of the general election, if not with the extreme left wing of the party. McCain can not attack her on this. The issue will be a moot one. Only getting out will be the issue and on this she beats ‘100 years more McCain.’ I can only imagine the attacks by McCain and the Republican smear machine against BO on Iraq as well as his lack of experience in the national arena. Whether we agree with his positions or not, let’s remember that McCain is a bona fide war hero. BO will be the next George McGovern or Mike Dukakis, no insult meant to either of these fine Americans. I voted for both of them. It is just that this year I want to win. The stakes are too high.

There is no chance that a play-by-the-rules type will vote for a rules-are-for-fools type like Mr. Clinton. (And you’d better believe Bill expects payback with interest on that $5 million loan to Hillary’s campaign.) I love Hillary.

I would vote for her in a heartbeat if Bill - and it’s always about Bill - wasn’t in the picture. But I, like many left leaning, clean playing voters, will vote for McCain before we see Bill enter the White House ever again.

@JS

In an ideal world, more educated voters would always choose for their best interest. I would say education is more important than any other issue simply because better education would mitigate any other problems through an intelligent public. This is another ideal, though.

A reality which must be confronted is education does not imply good judgment. (Case in point, GWB.) There is another aspect to our culture which enables ignorance. That aspect is our lack of humanity.

Our population has become very individual-oriented and closed-off from our own countrymen. Customizing every aspect of our lives to fit our “individual needs” from a box of differently shaped cookie-cutters. Technology enables us to communicate so much, but the communication has become detached from community to the point where many people are living in solipsism.

Because of this intimate isolation, two characteristics have emerged. There is less need for people to know the substance behind any action because an individual is likely perceive themselves as infallible, informed and inherently righteous. This is validated by their falsely realized notion of control over their life in all these superficial ways (ring tones, desktop pictures, music taste, volume preference, et cetera). This feeling of control leads to self-righteousness, I believe.

The second characteristic is something of a benefit. Since people are lacking more in a connective community, there is a higher tolerance level for outsiders and people of different race, religion and what have you.

What is needed to bring about a solution to the American political landscape is a sense of connection. I think Barack has gotten the ball rolling, and certainly the entire democratic primary season has done a lot to cause more political unity.

Still, there is a detachment between our citizens, which allows less for understanding because at the end of the day you can rationalize your own righteousness because anything you need can be obtained alone.

Education and information are very important to our Democratic-Republic. So is our humanity, with which we would not have a country to begin with.

..... additionally, if we had media which took its responsibilities of employment seriously by providing real information and valid opinions instead of treating morons and scholars as equals… that would at least be some positive change.

I know what you mean about the ‘I told you so”...

I don’t even bother anymore, because the stupid and programmed among us, would rather be right (or at least not admit their stupidity..even to themselves) that alive.

They refuse to learn from their mistakes in judgment. I can forgive the mistakes, but not the refusal to learn from them.

I cannot believe the anger and vitriol toward Marie Cocco expressed by apparent Obama voters on this blog. I happen to agree with Ms Cocco. This is a well written and well thought out analysis. Disagree if you will, but please cut out the ad hominem attacks. They are not helpful. They don’t become you. If this is how the audacity of hope looks I am not impressed.

My goals this election cycle are to take back the White House, to save our democratic republic, to save our Constitution, to stop torture, and to restore balance to the Supreme Court.

Democrats are often times their own worst enemy. Or as Will Rogers said, “I don’t belong to any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” What I am starting to hear, especially from Obama supporters, is very disheartening. It is starting to look like Obama supporters are becoming intolerant of anyone not backing or who even have the audacity of disagreeing with him.  And they express this in a vitriolic manner that does not advance democratic traditions. I have had to live through eight years of that with George Bush and I don’t need more of it. Neither does America. Democrats have got to stop forming a circle and shooting at those they disagree with.  It will only give the Republicans fodder for their smear machine come November.

Obama folks make much of polls – polls are showing this candidate or that candidate can win in November. Comments like that show a lack of understanding of what polls are and what they can do. Polls are simply a snapshot in time. They were never been designed to make predictions. (This is why TV pundits look so stupid and make complete asses of them selves every campaign.) As a predictor of the future, polls are no better than a horoscope. We just don’t know what will happen in the future.

Obama makes much of the Kennedy endorsements. The first campaign I worked on was JFK’s. The second campaign I worked on was Bobby’s. I see echoes of JFK and especially Bobby in Ms Cocco’s editorial. No one worked a crowd better and at the same time offered real hope to the poor and disenfranchised like RFK. And these memories do not make me someone who only looks to the past. It very much means I am thinking about now and the future. RFK’s issues are still with us, in fact have been exacerbated by the economic policies of Reagan and Bush. “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” - George Santayana

JFK once said “.......if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahaed and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties… if that is what they mean by ‘liberal’ then I am proud to be a liberal.”

I want a candidate that speaks, as JFK and RFK did, to these economic issues. That is all Ms Cocco is saying. For that she should not be condemned. She should not be regaled with snide comments. She is simply adding to the debate. And that is real JFK/RFK like and real statesman like.

Funny how people forget who supported Bush in the push for war with Iraq.  And who continues to support funding for the war.

I just do not understand how our country continues to let the people who are responsible for starting a war that has caused 100’s of thousands of deaths, maiming and billions of dollars in expense, to get away with not paying a price for their actions.  A young soldier who kills in the middle of combat and is put there by these so called leaders is punished for his or her actions.  How do these people such as Hillary, Bush, Rice and all of the others, whether by mistake or not, get off Scott free?  Those soldiers were punished. 

There were plenty of people BEFORE the war who spoke up.  There was the minority in Congress who spoke to deaf ears.  Why are they not listened to now?

We keep marching down the same path.

•  “…In my opinion, the sex scandals actually helped Bill Clinton (not in terms of his ability to govern) in that what most Democrats remember is him being unfairly abused.  It makes it very easy to ignore any serious criticism as just more abuse…”

Jackpine Savage…

You are a very smart guy. I’d never even thought of this, but it is so very, very, true. We all knew the impeachment and hoop de la over Bill’s misdeeds was a partisan attack, and it was an insult to most of us that our money and so much time was used in the commitment of those petty political games.

And YES, it HAS made easier to ignore any serious criticisms. It’s the same thing with Hillary herself. Remember the abuse she got when she and Bill first hit the White House? I mean the right-wing smear machine was at it from day one or before, calling Hillary everything but the child of god. And then came the Impeach Billary bumper stickers. Admittedly I was younger, and maybe not so politically sophisticated, but at the time, I honestly didn’t see or sense any overt crimes on the part of Hillary. So, it seemed like she was getting a bad rap then as well. IOW, she hadn’t DONE anything –at least not yet- to deserve that kind of animosity, and so I just figured it was all partisan and ignorance based. (misogynists and such).

NOW of course, there are dozens upon dozens of major issues with her politics and positions, which are well noted here and elsewhere, by ordinary people who pay attention. Still, too many others are still willing to ignore these things, being wedded to their heroine worship.

Meantime, I’m struck again by the quote that Marie was so anxious to use from Maxine Waters, about ‘people’ (speaking for the people of So. Central Los Angeles) needing HELP, and not HOPE. Ya know, that has just really pissed me off!!

In reality, what the people of So. Central Los Angeles need are JOBS, and EDUCATIONS, and opportunities. And, those have indeed totally evaporated over the past decade, as multiple symptom result of Clinton policies. So. Central Los Angeles, which was a predominantly African-American Community until about 10 maybe 15 years ago, has in fact become predominantly Hispanic now. Because, while Los Angeles, (and So. California in general) has always had a large population of Latinos, (obvious geography) the policies of NAFTA have run so many citizens from Mexico out of their own country, and they’ve wound up here. That’s just the way it is.

And, as more and more jobs have left here, (for the same reasons-NAFTA) it has created that tension in the formerly African-American communities, who find themselves in competition for the few remaining jobs and other resources, with the newly arrived Hispanics, here for the same reasons. NAFTA. And, nobody seems to get that connection, at least not if their supporting Hillary.

So I’m annoyed at the suggestion that ‘people need help’ because it sounds like too much whining for a handout, which we didn’t hear much from that community back in the day when it was a working class African-American community, and people had jobs, and if not “equal access’ at least SOME access. Now it’s just the same old divide and conquer over the fight for dwindling resources, which most politicians exploit.

Meantime, Hillary is claiming support from the Caesar Chevez family, but something tells me that if Caesar himself were still here, he’d see through this bullshit. Hillary is no friend to the Latinos. She’s a friend to herself and her corporate network in crime.

Aergus said it well too. Hillary’s acts are a sabotage to a campaign (Obama’s) that really does transcend what has always made the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy such a tried and true method for would be fascists. Such as it is with the Clinton campaign. Always make the ‘other’ look bad, to detract attention from ones own inadequacies.

Anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton in the belief she stands up for the underdog is misguided.  She has been a NAFTA backer, welfare “reform” backer, corporate lawyer, Wal-Mart board member, and triangulator.

That is the fundamental problem with our Republic: the voter needs to be well informed for the system to work.  The vast majority of American voters are so far from well informed (much less well thought) that they’ll vote in the strangest of ways.  Example number 1: George W. Bush.

There were a fair number of positive things about the Clinton administration, and had it not been for the Republican Revolution there may well have been even more positive things.

In my opinion, the sex scandals actually helped Bill Clinton (not in terms of his ability to govern) in that what most Democrats remember is him being unfairly abused.  It makes it very easy to ignore any serious criticism as just more abuse.

It should be noted that in the campaign finance scandals after the ‘96 elections, Sen Fred Thompson was actually trying to make those hearings bi-partisan.  He offered subpoenas to the Dems.  The whole thing might have been an impetus to actually reform campaign finance.  Unfortunately, the Clinton administration did everything they could to torpedo the hearings.  After they hung Sen Thompson out to dry, his fellow Republicans did the same thing (for trying to be bi-partisan).

It’s true, the less you know, the less you make, the more easily you are fooled and the more you want Hillary.

The well-off Democrats are the only ones I know of who vote against their self interests with full knowledge.  They’re the only ones who put the interests of their country before their own.  They ought to be listened to.

The big issue with your point, JS, is the way most people perceive the Clinton administration. In fact, I was speaking with a woman just last night who was adamant, “Everyone had more money during those years. They kept a balanced budget. I voted for Hillary because I want Bill back.”

Even though there are serious flaws in his administration, which you are apt at pointing out, Bill Clinton is the most popular president in recent history. People figure his whole eight years as a pax Americana where, and I really could quote this, we were at “peace” with the world and had a booming economy. Never mind Serbia, Iraq, Indonesia, NAFTA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, welfare reform, triangulation, et cetera.

There was another woman I was speaking with who supported Hillary, but wouldn’t provide a reason. That seems kind of shallow as well. Americans have been fooled into buying brand name candidates.

There is nothing pragmatic in the appeal; it is a nostalgic appeal.  She’s saying, “Remember how wonderful the 90’s were?”

Well they were wonderful, in a way.  But a lot of what was so great about the 90’s amounts to nothing more than collective naval gazing.  Instead of getting a head start on challenges we knew that we would face, we wallowed in our money.

And most of America is not well enough informed to realize that economics and presidential administrations don’t match up.  Ronald Reagan’s bloated defense budgets had as much to do with the tech boom as Bill Clinton did.  And a great many people fail to see that Bill Clinton dug the foundation for the economic house of cards that Bush built.

Rumor has it that the folks in the Obama movement have finally realized the deeper implications of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.  We’ll see if Sen. Clinton wants to count that towards her experience or not.

Marie is watching televised journalism too frequently. I’ve said it before, and it needs to be restated when I say splitting up America into little voting groups is insulting. Cocco continually buys into, and perpetuates dumb stereotypes, and she is one of those many people blinded by Hillary to the point where they cannot see Barack Obama won his place in Super Tuesday.

This voter rhetoric is just another way to diminish one campaign, which transcends race, class, gender, faith, partisanship and education level. It’s this transcendence that has the best capability of unifying America and bringing about change!

The old politics need to split voters into minority/majority, rich/poor and religious/secular to decide who is worth their time to speak to, and who they will throw table scraps to in order to secure re-election. Hillary stands for these politics. Barack Obama includes all Americans.

To surmize, this is the logic of a very large number of Clinton Supporters:

“Obama is dead even with delegates! This is proof that he has lost! She’s still here! Just like when the Republicans made nasty faces at her!!! You can’t kill Hillary! She is Immortal!”

She loves Shrillary. This isn’t the first cheerleading article of Cocco’s i’ve read and felt compelled to trash. i really thought it was our job to write the biased love letters.

You want more money at work? Ask for it, just like the boys do.

The smart money is on Obama to solve the issues you raise. That’s why educated people like him, because they see what a load of sh!t Hillary is shoveling, that she is part of the problem, not the solution.

What you seem to omit in your creative logic is the effect of popular branding. Kids don’t want Corn Pops because it is the healthiest cereal, they want it because they “gotta have their Pops!” They are repetitiously brainwashed into recognizing a thing and then blindly wanting that thing which they recognize. Just as the Bush Administration repeatedly asserted the lies that they used to justify going into Iraq, Hillary leverages her high visibility in the media for the past 16 years to be the Name Brand candidate, even going so far as to sloganize her campaign with the contemptible “Ready On Day One” drivel.

We will get so much more of the same from a self-agrandizing power coveting Clinton as we have from the self-agrandizing power coveting George W. Bush. i wish for once the party would listen to the smart money as they (and Hillary) did not when we protested against authorizing the war. i’m so sick and tired of having to say i told you so.

Well I haven’t decided if Marie “hates” Obama that much, or loves Hillary ‘that much’, but the bias in this piece tops the also obvious bias from all of her other pieces. So, we definitely get the message. Marie is either in love with Hillary, or sincerely hates Obama.

As a Californian who has paid very careful attention to the ‘mood’ of the voters here in my own area of the state, as well as the rest of the state, I can say that literally ALL of the pretend ‘facts’ of this article are rhetoric and ideology. For instance, Oprah has far less of an effect than Marie would like to give her credit for. In other words, many Californians voted for Obama DESPITE Oprah! Oprah lives here of course, but most Californians don’t think of Oprah as a Californian. I don’t.

Another thing that Marie doesn’t even touch on, (since she isn’t a Californian either, and has no clue to the basic ideology of Californians in general, as we are a VERY diverse and far more tolerant population in general) is that a very large population of Californians vote by mail. (I’ll try to find some exact statistic, and if anyone else has it, that would be helpful). But, I’ve heard more than a few experts confirm my own suspicions on how things came up as they did on the democratic side at least, and it’s NOT because Hillary has more appeal or has made more of a commitment to the economic needs of the bottomed out population. Rather, it’s because vote-by-mail begins weeks before the actually primary…because I’ve had my ballot for at least 6 weeks, if not longer. The speculation is that many Californians returned their ballots long enough ago that had they waited, they might very well have voted differently. For instance, it would be very interesting to know how many votes went to Kucinich and to Edwards, who didn’t drop out of the race until long after many voters had already cast their votes.

I might also add (again contrary to Marie’s hypothesis on the economy thing) that California ALSO has a ‘larger than most states’ percentage of troops dying in a war that Hillary has so avidly supported. In a liberal state that has ALWAYS been opposed to this war, Hillary did NOT gain any points. So, again contrary to Marie, while the economy is certainly an issue for all Americans, the war is as well, and Hillary is a war-monger, and intelligent people who pay attention, are aware of that. 

Last but not least, there’s this obvious contradiction, (contradiction sounds better than lying propaganda)…

•  Maxine Waters, an African-American congresswoman who represents South-Central Los Angeles and who endorsed Clinton, put it aptly: People in her district “don’t need more hope. They need help.”

Actually, Maxine was very much ‘alone’ in So. Central Los Angeles in her support for Hillary. I was shocked myself, until it was discovered that Maxine (who I’d always respected) has already been well ‘supported’ by the Clinton’s. (read…tons of money). Humm. Politics are so nasty.

Anyway, that could end up costing Maxine down the road. We’ll see.

But, last certainly the largest bit of hyperbole in this article, is the fact that it actually came out to be an even draw (relatively speaking) for Clinton and Obama in this Golden State. Marie would have us believe that Hillary won it hands down.

Not so….

One thing we do know now…(if we didn’t before)…Marie either really hates Obama, or really loves Clinton. Maybe both.

The other thing we know is that when one loses all objectivity, one also loses all credibility. Not good for a journalist/pundit.