There’s that term “white” again.... you must be racist then, kath......!?!?

“...It’s also about governing record. Obama’s is ultra cautious and weak.”..

You don’t get it Will. Why is it that everybody I know with this name, “Will” is so ideologically dyslexic?

You claim that Obama is ‘ulta cautious’ and weak in governing.

You say this obviously without any comprehension of the fact that ‘cautious’ does not equate to ‘weak’.

Caution (in governing or anything else) means that you THINK about things BEFORE you do them. You THINK about the ramifications of your actions/policies/positions, and the effects on ALL fronts.

That is NOT an indication of weakness, but an indication of STRENGTH. Instead of just shooting blindly, based on one’s knee-jerk EMOTIONAL reaction to something, and how they are PERSONALLY affected at that moment in time, the cautious person THINKS about how it will reverberate and what the effects on the WHOLE, are likely to be.

So, you don’t get it. I believe that Bill Clinton did exercise this sort of caution when he was in the office. Barack Obama has done an even better job.

I don’t KNOW if Bill Clinton really knew what the outcome of his free trade pacts would be. So, maybe he just didn’t think that through. Or, maybe he DID and didn’t give a shit.

Either way, that was not ‘good governing’ despite what was generally a degree of caution on his part.

So, Obama is not ‘ultra cautious’ but rather ultra smart and gifted in being able to see the whole, and then make a judgment call, or perform whatever action is required. Sometimes, as he has made very clear since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the OPTIONS are bad and worse. The only good ‘option’ was to have never attacked and invaded Iraq to begin with.

So, if you think that his excellent judgment in denouncing that ‘option’ of aggressive warfare was too ‘cautious’ maybe you should consider the results. That is unless you think that the results might eventually pan out to deliver the reasons for using the ‘option’ to begin with...to steal oil and other resources, and to control the region by gunboat diplomacy, which is actually terrorism.

Meantime, Obama has no problems at all with raising taxes on the very rich. So, why wouldn’t he be the brunt of the corporate media, instead of just the brunt of the Hillary campaign?

MMC, you’re a one-note singer, aren’t you? Buy yourself an MP3 player, plug in those ear pods, and broaden your horizons.

If Obama can win aginst Hillary by staying on the high road, it will be one of the first changes we need to see in politics.  Hillary is the only one using this tactic right now, because she cannot win on issues, charisma or even intelligence.

On issues all three candidates offer little differences, except Hillary voted to go after Al Quada in Iraq. Everything else has subtle differences.  Not sure were they even differ on ending the war? 

Charisma, Hillary has none, she actually provides a involuntarily gag reflex in some people.

Hillary has intelligence, but it seems to be hidden behind her negative scorched earth policy. So one could never see it. Her concept of reality, seems very similar to Bush’s, when it comes to admitting a mistake or getting what she wants, the similarities of both Bush and Hillary are striking. 

In the long run I still maintain the three way race is a selected race for the entertainment of the masses.

tdbach:

Bravo!  I’m sure it is no surprise that I say a huge “ditto” to this.  (LOL) It is beautifully put, and perfect in its assessment.

Thanks.

“Experience is rather thin gruel for measuring presidential success. Alone it is no substitute for good judgment, a bold vision, an ability to articulate it and inspire a following, and a temperament and organization to translate vision into programs and policies. These are the qualities that have rewarded us, and which have divided the good from the mediocre in our presidential history.”

Now that sounds like it came from an Obama pamphlet. Coincidence? I think not. The problem is, the same thing could have been said to advocate for Hitler – who, by the way, came to power with virtually no experience in government.

You see, “experience” has two meanings here:

The one most talked about is experience in the political arena that is Washington. Cynics like Conservative Yankee would describe that sort of experience as “a cozy relationship with important corporate and political entities” – which is half true. You don’t get to be president and raise the money to do that by thumbing your nose at “corporate entities.” At least not unless you can get public financing for elections. Hillary and Bill learned that very early. Barrack has learned it, too. That’s one part of “experience” he’s not lacking in. As to the political entities, I wouldn’t use “relationships” as the defining characteristic of experience – again, Obama has worked on relationships in Washington with remarkable zeal and to good effect; it’s the political give and take, the nuances of getting things done in the big leagues of political gamesmanship that is Washington, that Obama is a virtual rookie at. But he could no more waltz into Washington on promises of “hope” and “change” and “new politics” and expect the whole system to march along to his tune than he could walk into Fenway Park with a wicket and a bat and expect the Red Sox to start playing by the rules of Cricket. I don’t know what is meant by “a LARGE stake in the establishment” but I think you’d be nuts not to have some “reverence for at least a part of the status quo.” Like procedural practices in congress. Like Senators and reps looking out for the interests of their constituents.

The other face of experience is OUR, the voters, experience with the candidate. We’ve experienced Obama’s oratory, but little else. What will happen if he takes over? What will happen when his “new politics” collides with real politics and his frustration boils over? (You might look to his friend, Deval Patrick in Massachusetts for some clue how this might turn out, and Massachusetts politics is strictly minor league compared to Washington.) You pretty much know what would happen if Clinton is president. You may not like it. You may not be comfortable that she’ll do “the right thing” by your lights. But you know it will be a carefully navigated and guided approach, pragmatic to a frustrating degree perhaps but pragmatic – which is comforting to most of us. But Obama? I think, for all his rhetoric about change, Obama would pilot the ship of state in pretty much the same general direction Clinton would, and he’d be pragmatic in his choices as well. But I don’t know. And even if he turns out as I suspect, I fear he’ll run into more than a few icebergs and sand bars along the way, and I’m not sure we can afford that right now. (Sorry for switching metaphors.)

bert:

I do appreciate the support.  Thanks.  However, I am quite used to the childish “schoolyard” approach of MMC, Cyrena, Leefeller and some others here.  They apparently never learned anything about real discussion and debate, and think that vulgarity, name-calling, accusation, intimidation and ad hominem attacks are all acceptable practices.  I am of course most surprised by Cyrena in this regard, since she claims to be some kind of professor.  I can only hope she is not teaching her students the inappropriate and negative practices she engages in.

As for MMC, his johnny-one-note act has indeed become tiresome, and I continue to find it breathtakingly hyprocritical that no one calls him out for the spamming and trolling he does in this regard.  Note that I was called out as a “spammer” simply for posting the same two-paragraph post on three threads.  Yet MMC has posted his hopelessly obsessive drivel on almost every single thread on the entire site - and often multiple times in a single thread.  Still, not one word of chastisement from anyone.  This is also typical of the “mutual admiration society” comprised of the Hillary-bashers here.

Finally, as you pointed out elsewhere, most of this group is so fact-challenged - or, more often, fact-denying - that even “reasoned” debate becomes extremly difficult.  Their attitude is either transparent denial, studied ignorance, or “I’ve made up my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts.” And, of course, their favorite response to these types of assessments of THEM is to try to turn it around by saying things like, “That’s incredible coming from YOU” etc.  This is yet another “schoolyard” tactic; the “am too” “am not” “am too” blow-a-raspberry-at-your-opponent approach.

The best we can do, then, is simply not give in to the frighteningly anti-American suggestion by MMC, Cyrena and others that anyone who does not support their candidate - much less has the unbelievable temerity to question or criticize their candidate - simply “shut up,” or go to another site.

Peace.

As every Grad student knows, that’s the whole basis of science.. experience is often a delusion.

As Mr. Kuhn pointed out in The Structure of Scientific revolutions, for thousands of years there were millions of people who swore to the idea that the earth was the center of the universe.

Galileo, showed that the sun was actually the center of the solar system, negating the validity of those observations.

Experience does not in itself prove something is right, because there is an asymetric relationship between experience and falsehood.

So now there is a new political vision, a new perspective, that is challenging some in the Democratic party that continue to view it’s consituency as victims, who need more social programs, more interventions, more Big Bills.

(When the Iraq War reaches that moment in time when it costs more than World War II, will anyone wonder aloud how the congress, and the Pentagon, and all our military leaders collective experience has not helped us win? Not to mention 12 billion dollars a month.)

Times change, we need a new political vision to lead this country, it’s the old one that got us into this mess..

Hillary voted to support the War, this is a given, why did she do this?  Maybe she wanted to support the war, she seems to like the idea of war, I have not heard her say anything against the war.  Her experience knows that oil is important so we go to war for it. 

When, I herd that Hillary brokered the Irish peace talks, I was beginning to believe to be quite an accomplishment that can be placed in the experience slot, so now we can plan on her brokering the world peace talks, she has so much experience.

Then I found out the story was a stretching of the truth, just a little embellishment if you will. No ends to the lies, and stretching the truth, always bending the story.  Well I am sick of the crap, come on Hillary folks give us a break, maybe the truth is out there, just dig a little deeper, Hillary does sound like Bush?  Your diamond is a lump of coal.

MMC

You write:  “Naaaaaani, Naaaaani, Naaaani.  u por delufus moretunie.

More to the point your continued posturing on behalf of war woman is out of place here in liberal land.  That’s right Maani,Truthdig is a leftist/progressive/liberal political blog.  Face it your pumping up the wrong crowd. “

You don’t have to be so rude to Maani, or anyone for that matter, in your disagreement MMC. I am a leftist/progressive/liberal yet do not agree with you most times. But that does not mean I am not a liberal.

That great philosopher Bertrand Russel defined a liberal this way:

“The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.”

According to Mr. Russel you may not be a liberal becasue you appear to hold your beliefs dogmatically.

Which leads me to another Bertrand Russel quote:

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubt.”

MMC

It took no real courage to get up in front of a left leaning liberal collge group and speak out against the war on Iraq. It was a safe bet.

NNC

This question is starting to get a bit old at this stage of the game. Plus except for a very small, vocal, active - especially on left leaning blogs like this one - this is not the burning issue of a MAJORITY (read - needed to win an election Duh!!!! Thats is what we are about here!!!!) of Americans.

Iraq has fallen to third place on issues of most importance to Americans as they vote for President. The economy, bread and butter issues are Number 1 right now and most likely will be throi
ugh the elction.

It’s the economy stupid!!!!

Sp MMC and every one else who keep harping on this -get off it all ready. We got your point. We know how you feel.

Bush does get a small nod in the second paragraph, but i think that the lack of experience is so overwhelmingly blatant at this point that it goes without saying.

When there is no plan for withdrawal and no change of mindset toward the war, the worst thing that Obama could have done is to vote against providing the soldiers in Iraq with the supplies and resources they need to keep up with their misguided mission.  There are more considerations than simply saying this war was stupid, we should not have started it, so now let’s just stop payment.  It will take planning and more money just to end it. But if you really want to split hairs. Hillary not only continues to vote for the same measures you are trying to attack Obama with, she stupidly gave the W his way and helped to construct the house of cards we live in now.

i’m kind of surprised, Maani, after reading many of your posts, you seem to be in favor of the abstract concepts of morality and character and common human decency, yet despite Hiillary’s transformation into the Electo-tron Scorched Earth Candidate (perhaps she read too much into the Saturday Night Live skit celebrating bitch-ness as integral to success), you still unwaveringly support her. Doesn’t her most recent (in a long line of other) personality transformation give you pause? When is the cost of short term victory at odds with the long term goal?

Up until this kitchen sink moment i felt like i could be satisfied with either candidate, but now i’m not sure that Hillary is actually a step up from her chum McCain, and so i will have to think long and hard about whether i will support HIllary should she win the nomination. If it is more important to Hillary that she win, than that we all win together, then not only is she a prime example of the the “old politics” that i have come to loathe so much, but she is a hypocrite and her message about being our champion has the same ring to it as Julius Caesar’s war against the Roman Senate for the good of the Republic.

i don’t buy the nonsense that Obama is some sort of political messiah, i never have and i think that once the initial manufactured “shock” wears off, that Obama is a politician with all the expected election necessities like fund-raisers and advisors and political insiders trying to move the mountain, the difference that will be left is that Obama won’t be throwing out the kitchen sink, he and he won’t be reinventing himself every several weeks.

i hope that you will take a pragmatic look at the two candidates and compare their records without the false bias that Barrack is perfection personified, and when you see that the two candidates are , as one might expect, fairly even on the campaign contribution realities, you can see that it is really not even a story.  All three candidates have “taken on” undue special interest influence. Darling Hillary has said on numerous occasions that we need to fight special interests. She in fact has the same stance as McCain. i take their money, sure, but it just doesn’t influence my vote.  Right.  Maybe the spotlight is on Barrack because he’s the only one who hasn’t failed yet on the national level with regards to special interest.

MMC:

“Barack Obama took the same intelligent and considered approach with regard to the war while running for office at the same time.  He rejected the war while running for the Senate.  He educated the people of Il. and the rewarded him with a political victory.  He united people with the truth about the war and won and election...”

...and then promptly betrayed them by voting to fund that war - consistently, to the tune of over $300 million - as well as voting for the extension of the Patriot Act (twice), among other things.

Ya gotta love that principle and integrity...to sday nothing of “hope” and “change.”

Peace.

Cyrena:

I repeat bert’s question: “Do you live in an alternate universe where facts never mean anything?”

The numbers I have been posting come from opensecrets.org, a broadly respected tracker of campaign contributions.  And just so you don’t have to do spend any time doing real work finding this, here is the list for Obama:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N000096 38&cycle=2008

And here is the one for Hillary:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N000000 19&cycle=2008

As you will see, they are not that far apart.  Obama got more from some than Hillary, Hillary got more from some than Obama, but it is essentially even overall.

So keep repeating completely insupportable canards all you like.  It doesn’t change the facts.

Peace.

Cyrena: Do you live in an alternate universe where facts never mean anything? The figures cited below are from Obama’s own campaign fundrasing records. You do know candidates have to submit those perodically - transparency in governemnt and all.

Obama’s own fundraising records show that he DOES rely on donors with special interests.

Three of Obama’s top fundraisers, who each have raised more than $50,000 for his campaign since January, were registered as lobbyists last year, according to reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records.

In 2006, Alan Solomont of Solomont Bailis Ventures earned $90,000 in lobbying income; Tom Reed, of Kirkland & Ellis, lobbied for the Seismological Society of America, the Nanobusiness Alliance, and the Airport Minority Advisory Council; and Scott Harris, of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, represented Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Dell and Sprint-Nextel.

All three Obama fundraisers have said they are no longer lobbyists, although the public records office has not posted contract termination reports for any of them.

Several other major Obama fundraisers also have histories of lobbying government officials for a living. Thomas Perrelli was a lobbyist for Jenner & Block as recently as 2005. Until 2003, when Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate, Peter Bynoe was a registered state lobbyist representing Boeing and other corporate interests, according to the Illinois secretary of state. They have both raised at least $50,000 for Obama’s presidential bid, according to his campaign. 

Frank Clark, chairman of Commonwealth Edison, helped lead a $2.2 million congressional lobbying effort on nuclear research and waste disposal in 2000, according to a report under his name filed with the Senate. He also raised more than $50,000 for Obama this year. He played an important part trying to persuade state lawmakers to deregulate the energy industry in Illinois.

All this may surprise Obama’s supporters. And for Obama to continue this chrade is just plain wrong.

Sopurce: “The Hill” newsletter 4/19/07

No Maani,

I’m believing in what is there, and simply not visible to all, or audible to all. (at least you).

If actions speak louder than words, (how trite) then I’d say the sound of the ‘action’ is rather DEAFENING.

So Maani, you just keep counting those bucks, and attributing the sources however you want...in your dreams. Because you can’t tell people something different than what they already know Maani, at least as far as the money goes.

But hey, when you finish counting at the end of the day, or the week, or in November when Obama wins, at least have the decency to admit that we’ve recognized your stale and smelly red herrings, for months now.

Now since you must be blind and can’t smell...you are at the bottom of the barrel on this batch of bad fish Maani. You need some new stuff. Nobody is buying this shit, unless it’s to bite long enough to explode it right back in your face.

Go fishing. Get some new material. I doubt if it’s gonna work any better, but who knows. Keep picking those wings off of the flies, and maybe you can use that as bait for the red herrings.

Meantime, I’ll keep enjoying the action of change. “Tis a beautiful thing, and it gives me hope.

Leefeller:

You are simply repeating the same incorrect claims.

Obama and Hillary have brought in a total of ~$200 million each.  Of this, EACH has brought in between $35 million and $50 million in “special interest” money.  And with the exception of Hillary’s ~$800,000 in “lobby” money and ~$40,000 in PAC money, and Obama’s ~$4,000 in PAC money, the rest of BOTH of their intakes - i.e., the majority of BOTH of their donations - have been from “individuals.”

You can keep repeating the “Obama’s money comes from individuals” mantra all you like.  However, the FACT is that there is little if any difference in the sources of their donations.

Peace.

While it is true that Obama has gotten a lot of small donations from supporters, it is also true he has a lot of corporate sponsors. He jsut tries to hode his, or as the article link below sugests, finesse his ties.

One link that names some of his, with dollar amounts is below. The article was in a newsletter called TheHill, and is titled “Sen. Obama finesses his lobbyist ties.”

In today’s election world no one can get elected without cirportae ties. Unfortunately. That is why I am for public financing.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen.-obama-finesse s-his-lobbyist-ties-2007-04-19.html

Seeing the Hillary spin using the same lack of respect for truth as George Bush’s, cloned similarities are very apparent.  Hillary using the kitchen sink approach to politics is an example of what we saw during the Bush campaign.  Transparency is not there, what is this head trip game with the taxes?  Right now the unquestioning media follows her like puppies. 

Hillary can take over the helm of George Bush without missing a beat but so can McCain.  Why would I support her if nothing is going to change, especially the attitude toward the war? 

Hillary brings nothing, nothing new to the table, she is “old politics” living in a good old boy wold of yesterday, attacking the politics of change, for change is not in her cards.

Most of Obama’s money comes from individuals and just the fact that he address’s the lobby problem is a far cry over Hillary, who is so entrenched with yesterday old politics.  So you may be right Obama may not be able to change lobby influence, but maybe he will not sleep with them either. That would be a nice start.

Cyrena:

“As for the Congress, they are 535 Americans. Do you have any idea how fast 200 million Americans can replace ALL of their asses?”

Really?  If that were the case, why has it not been done?  The question is rhetorical.  It has not been done because the majority of the American populace is sleepy sheeple who are led around by the nose, are NEVER going to “get it,” and will continue to vote in the same losers (and occasional winners) as they always have.  Do you REALLY think that the voting population of America is EVER going to “replace all of their asses,” much less as “fast” as you think it can be done?  Get real, girl.

“As for the corporate influence, Obama has less of it than you might think.”

No, he has MORE of it than YOU think - or at least are willing to acknowledge.  $35 million in “special interest” money - including over $6 million from Wall Street, $5 million from the energy industry, $3.8 million from the education industry, $3 million from Big Pharma, $3 million from the real estate industry, and $6 million from “business” (and that’s just a start) - is not “less” corporate influence than most people believe about Obama, but FAR more.

[N.B. Yes, Hillary has taken in as much or a bit more than Obama from these and other special interests.  However, SHE doesn’t claim to be the candidate who is fighting “special interests”; he DOES.]

Keep believing the fairy tales, if you wish, but facts speak louder than claims, and actions speak louder than words.

Peace.

lawlessone:

This is actually one of the best cases made for Hillary that I have read thus far.

“[W]hile it is theoretically possible for ‘experience’ to be valuable in a job, it is seldom actually available for this particular job.  There are after all but a bare handful of living individuals who have ever worked even near the Oval Office...”

Hillary has; Obama hasn’t.  And Hillary was NOT just serving tea and crumpets; she was involved in many policy discussions, and shepherded through occasional legislation.

“For instance, none of the current candidates has ever been even president of a large company or chief executive officer of a significant bureaucracy.  Fortunately or unfortunately, the executive-type experience (which none of them have) tends to be dramatically different from the legislative-type experience which all of them have.”

Bush was supposed to be our “MBA” president.  Perot was a businessman.  He would have made a terrible president.  Bloomberg is a businessman.  He would also have made a terrible president (despite the so-called common wisdom).  I don’t personally think running a corporation is the experience that is required for the presidency.

“Look how badly we were served by various sons of Presidents gaining the office.”

Other than John Quincy Adams (who was a good, if not particularly great, president) and George Bush, which sons are you talking about?

“...[S]houldn’t it matter more what type of experience it was?  Whether the candidates appear to have truly learned from their experience?  Were they in a position to actually learn something arguably useful that cannot be learned by other means or with minimal risk on the job?  Better yet, did they learn the right things when they were gaining such experience?  In other words, did they make costly mistakes?  Most importantly of all, if they made mistakes and who doesn’t, are they adult enough to admit it and vow to change?”

Hillary made a “costly” mistake re her initial attempt to create universal health care during BC’s first term.  Everyone knows that.  But she has admitted that mistake - openly and honestly - learned from it, and moved forward to create an even better, more transparent plan.

Hillary made an even more “costly” mistake (in so many ways) in voting for the Iraq war resolution.  And although she has not “apologized” the way many people want her to, she did admit it was a mistake and is the single decision she made that she wishes she could unmake (and not solely for political expediency, though that is certainly part of it).  She has also said openly that if people are going to judge her solely on that vote, they are free to vote for Obama.  But she has, again, learned from it, moved on, and is as eager as Obama to begin disengaging from Iraq as quickly as possible.

Obama has not even had enough time to make “costly” mistakes, much less learn from them and/or show that he can.  This makes him a much bigger question mark in this regard than Hillary.

Thanks for the support.  LOL.

Peace.

As a 44 yr old I’d like to review th expereinces I have had over the last 35 yrs.
Saw a VP required to become Pres because of Corruption. I saw Hostages taken for over a yr, I saw gas lines at leaast a mile long, I saw my state of MI become a ghost town, I saw a pres who ignored a killer Virus because it was not effecting ‘his base’, I saw a country undermined by corp scandals and crimes. I saw a Pres sign a treaty which has helped our ghos town infrastructure to decay. I’ve seen the auto industry re introduce led sled gas guzzlers, I’ve seen a corrupt Congress focus on Politcal revenge instead of their jobs. And now I’ve seen it all again in fast forward over the last 7 yrs.
So expereince in What? Who has truely benefited from all this ‘Expereince’ certainly not Woman, Children, the environment, the nation nor the World Community.
Waht changes have occurred in the last 35 yrs. Our country has become the clearing house for Corporationist - those who feel the best World stratedgy comes from their controllin gth resources the prices and the Wages and Benefits. In th elast 35 yrs I have watched MY Country be handed - lock stock and constitutional rights - over to brick an dmortar entities- full of hollow promises and little pieces of worthless Paper.
Give me the Dice! I have seen th epast- and I Remember! I KNOW what you Offer Hill & Mac, and I not only do not want more- I want revenge - A Dish best served Cold. You too have played the game the Corps have laid out, I want some one who refuse this ‘Board Game’ and instead changes it from Monoploy to Life, and is out to win this game for all of Us!
I have not even had to state the areas both Hill & Mac ahve FAILED at to discount their candidacies- but I have countless examples to recall esp Hillary during her miniscule time in the Senate. She does not deserve to be Pres- she does not deserve to be a US Senator. Seh has qualified for Aiding and Abeiting, complicity, complacency.... Basically Dereliciton of Duty on the Armed Services Com(con). As for Mac- he once was admireable - but time moves on and he has proven his undying allegience to the same entities as Cheney. Neither the last 35 yrs nor their records should be considered anything to brag about and cerainly not Resume Worthy.
Neither should be running a presidential campaign- they both should be assembling their Defense Teams!

HC asks:

• “You’re voting for Barak Obama, a member of a 216 year old party.  How the hell is one man going to change the democratic party, the congress, corporate influence, etc.?”

Well, nobody said that he alone was gonna change the DEMOCRATIC party. And at this point in time, I don’t believe that it is the ‘party’ that matters to most Americans. Many people have become aware, (finally) that we have been destroyed by the party mentality of the political system. And, old is not better, when it has destroyed the whole.

As for the Congress, they are 535 Americans. Do you have any idea how fast 200 million Americans can replace ALL of their asses?

As for the corporate influence, Obama has less of it than you might think. That’s why you aren’t so very off the mark with this part of your post, even though you don’t realize it, because you can’t see beyond the ‘party’.

• “Now if Obama were heading a new party that a unified nation supported, then I’d believe the hype.  But as far as I can see, you’re fooling yourself.”

For those millions who support him, they DO see him as heading a new party that CAN unify the nation. Now whether or not he can get beyond the poison of what has been in place for so long, remains to be seen.

Still, it might be more than ‘hype’. In other words, at what point in the MAJORITY, (silent or otherwise) does it turn from hype into reality? For you, it may remain ‘hype’ unless he slaps a new ‘party name’ on to the effort. Like a new label or new packaging, or a store that closes for remodeling, and then re-opens for business under a new name.

But, for many who support Obama, it’s not because he’s a democrat, but because he REPRESENTS a new party, even though he’s obviously staying within the name-structured system to at least make that accomplishment.

So, it IS a new party. It’s obviously NOT the repugs of old. And, it’s obviously not the Dems of old, because if one looks at the current fore runners across the board, we have 2 repugs (McCain and Clinton) and one Democrat, who is Obama. We DID have other dems in the race, like Kucinich and Edwards. But, they’ve been temporarily side-lined.

So, we’ve got a new party that has formed and united behind the Obama candidacy, and we’ve got a handful, (not many more) from the OLD democrat party that could be incorporated into the new one, and we’ll shed the old diseased skin of the rest of them.

Then, we’re good to go with the new party, (progressive rather than repug one day and dem the next) and we’ll get on with ending the destruction, and putting together a new team that can actually make some progress. Some stuff is salvageable, (the Constitution I’d like to believe) but the rest simply just has to go.

The status quo IS the disease, and we don’t need to kill it with chemotherapy, we just need to replace the diseased cells with healthy ones. And, we don’t even have to call them a different name, (formally) because we ALEADY KNOW the difference between diseased cells and healthy ones.

Meantime, this from Leefeller is TRUE:

“Hillary did not win Texas, but the media would have us believe otherwise.”

She did NOT win Texas, but the media would have us believe otherwise. They stop reporting after the first of the Texas 2-Step process.

The ‘silent majority’ knows though.

1. Mr Obama, you gotta pick up that mic off the podium. (i really liked your last speech, and it would have played well if you had won Texas by then.) You need to walk around and engage the crowd a little more. Tell Ellen you’re sorry, but no more dancing. No more Oprah or Ted Kennedy, you’ve made the stage, now it’s up to you to hold it. So own the stage. Get a sense of its space and how your body relates to the audience at different spots on the dais. Make lot’s of eye contact, but be aware of where the cameras are so you can connect with the “millions” watching, wanting a little of that Obamagic.

2. Retire the stump speech, it’s done. Throw it away, but keep the concepts. You need to make a few explanations of a few different subjects, choose one topic for different days of the week. You’ll have the advantage on sound-bites for the week. The goal is to wash the “speechiness” off of the campaign footage and demonstrate—rightly so—that Barrack is a communicator of ideas, not a classic phonograph record enjoining hymns of hope.

Stay aware of media coverage saturation. At a certain point most of us who are paying attention have seen the same rehashed stump speech on various election nights, and we hear the same lines repeated. We need to see you more off the cuff. That’s how you project the confidence of judgement without actually saying anything about judgement. You answer questions and explain to us how you see the world, demonstrate the courage you want us to know and be forthright and honest about whatever sludge bomb is hurled at you. In fact, you would do well to acknowledge dismissively their various barbs.

To start, a line for Monday Morning (it’s worded quite carefully, so don’t pass over the subtleties):

“Hillary has done everything she can to try and win a close race, and the so-called Kitchen Sink approach is I think, in the long-view, going to be a losing strategy. They say that campaigns go negative because going negative works, but at a certain point that twinge of fear subsides and people consider the character of these tactics with the purpose of distorting reality to inspire doubt, and well, you can only throw out the kitchen sink once. it’s old politics and I don’t have any more to say on that matter. Next question....”

3. Do not get bogged down proving your experience. Your readiness will show through in your words and action, especially when you aren’t trying to explain how much experience you have. You show good judgement by not engaging the trivial.

Your surrogates need to be injecting the suggestion of cynicism in the type of experience your opponents demonstrate. But hit Hillary first. Acknowledge that McCain went so far as to rebuke the whacky radio host after his comments. But the surrogates need to get the pundits deconstructing just what experience is and means, and is the Hillary camp exhibiting the kind of experience that voters ultimately will respond positively to.

There you go. Three steps to realigning the Barrack-i-verse.

i enjoyed this abstract look at the historical merits of pre-presidential claims to experience. i sure felt like the presidents mentioned have to bear the consequences of more than they might actually be directly responsible for. For example Hoover and the Great Depression, talk about bad timing.

This article reminded me of some thoughts i’ve been having about how the Obama campaign might re-juice its mo-jo, and so i thought i’d just write it directly to whom it is directed and maybe a little bird will catch it up and bring the message to Obama’s ears themselves.... and remember, Barrack’s just a person like you or me, so let’s put the brakes on the stupid religious mystique the right and the surrogates try to slap on a political rally that’s got a lot of people really excited about politics, believing that they can make a difference in the way their government behaves. Sure it’s a long promise, but electorates live on long promises, and generally are forgiving if some of those long tosses slip through the fingers of a narrowly divided Congress. We have to keep that in the picture too, that we can fight against even a McCain presidency if we get those seats moved over in the fall. So keep an eye on your local races too.

whyzowl1
Of course the whole thing is designed to keep the rabble from having anything to say about public policy.  All the cadidates who best represented the wishes of the majority have been eliminated.  We are left with three candidates who represent corporate interests.  There can be no serious discussion of issues now.  Yesterday it was reported that Obama and McCain were asked by a reporter if they wore briefs or boxers.  Hillary volunteered that she wears boxers and always has.

KEEPING THE RABBLE IN LINE a series of interviews with Noam Chomsky by David Barsamian.  Worth reading especially whenever you get to taking our elections too seriously.

You’re voting for Barak Obama, a member of a 216 year old party.  How the hell is one man going to change the democratic party, the congress, corporate influence, etc.?

Now if Obama were heading a new party that a unified nation supported, then I’d believe the hype.  But as far as I can see, you’re fooling yourself.

Either an Obama presidency will culminate in a stalemate with the status quo which accomplishes nothing, or a betrayal of your unrealistic ideals.

To support Obama doesn’t necessarily mean to hate Clinton and your requirement of a perfect president is unrealistic.

And what’s wrong with sex anyway?

The skill that qualifies a person to be president, it turns out, is the ability to get elected. Once elected, assuming the presidency will be an experience which none of them can claim to understand best.

Leefeller:

“Hillary sleeping in the beds of big pharma, the health insurance industry, and others for for the past 20 years.  Hillary has taken much of her financing from these industries, and she will not be able to effect change cutting off the hand that feeds her.”

Just to keep the record straight, both Hillary AND Obama have taken ~$35 million from “special interests” including Big Pharma (Hillary only took a little more than Obama) and Big Energy (Obama took more than any other candidate in either party).

Obama is no angel when it comes to special interest money, all his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Peace.

Why? Because I’m willing to consider Obama running with Hillary?
No one is more critical of the Clintons tactics than I. I’m just considering other possibilities should Obama lose.
Check out my Blog.
http://skeweredpolitics.blogspot.com/

Looks like Hillary is going for a McCain, Hilliary ticket, believe she wants to stick it to the Dems.  She is one sick puppy.

Hillary offers old politics, status quo, her entrenchment with special interests goes against the people in the same way the special interest controlled media does. Example would be the big three state sweep when actually it should be two to two.  Hillary did not win Texas, but the media would have us believe otherwise.  Hillary brings nothing new to the table.  Hillary sleeping in the beds of big pharma, the health insurance industry, and others for for the past 20 years.  Hillary has taken much of her financing from these industries, and she will not be able to effect change cutting off the hand that feeds her.  Deception to conceal and distort the real Hillary record as something it is not and in a positive light for the future is really nothing more than old politics. 

So, a Hillary and Obama ticket would be just like the Bill and Gore non team. Dumbing down of new ideas, for the status quo.

Does anybody else out there get the recurring sense that both Hillary and Obama are Judas Goat candidates, pre-selected for us by the establishment to give the Republican candidate—even in the face of aftermath of the Bushocalypse—a good chance to win the presidency? It goes without saying that there’s a substantial percentage of the American electorate as a whole that would never, under any circumstances, vote for either a woman or a black candidate. Either one of them is going to head into November with high built-in negatives.

I mean, put yourself in their Guccis; the Republicans ARE the party of the “haves and the have-mores.” The Dems, on the other hand, might negatively impact the progress of the war-profiteering gravy train that is the Global War on Terror, might respond to the meltdown of the economy in unpleasant ways, might <gasp> even raise taxes on the rich! No, no, we simply can’t have that.

So the sympathetic, faux populist Democratic lightning rods for popular social dissension lead their loser supporters to the slaughter—again. And you know what’s really sweet? The suckers never catch on. Never.

Bert:

A well-thought-out assessment.  And I believe the question of who would better withstand the right-wing GOP smear and attack machine (which will be in full force, despite McCain’s claim that he will be “civil") is very much on the minds of the superdelegates, and will be a major factor in their decision if the two candidates remain as close as they are now.

Peace.

Leefeller:

If that was all a First Lady did, then you (and Granny Doc) would be correct.  But it is NOT all that a First Lady does - in addition to the fact that Hillary greatly expanded the role of First Lady beyond anything any prior First Lady had ever done (with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt).

She was far more intimately involved in policy discussions than any Frist Lady before her, and served far more often as a true “emissary” to foreign leaders, and not just a “tea and crumpets” visitor.  Indeed, wasn’t this one of the things so many people COMPLAINED about: that she was serving almost as a “co-president?”

You can’t have it both ways: either was overstepped her bounds as First Lady and served as a sort of co-president, or she simply entertained “dance groups” etc.

Among Hillary’s accomplishments as First Lady was that she initially instigated the investigation into what became known as Gulf War Syndrome - a SERIOUSLY unpopular and politically dangerous position to take at the time - and when the condition was proved to exist, she helped draft and champion legislation that provided special medical benefits for vets with GWS.

Hillary’s experience as First Lady DID give her legitimate and valuable experience - perhaps less than she seems to claim, but far more than you and others give her credit for.

Peace.

SL:

Actually, while it sounds optimistic, that eventuality does in fact exist, despite all the seeming obstacles.  Indeed, depending on how the next few primaries go (with or without FL and MI), there is definitely the chance that a brokered convention would lead to a Clinton-Obama ticket (if she does wel enough betwen now and then AND he continues to stumble, even minimally) or an Obama-Clinton ticket (despite Hillary’s contention that that would “never” happen; after all, it puts her into the catbird seat for 2012 (if Obama doesn’t run again) or 2016 (if he does)).

Keep in mind that Bill Clinton is a superdelegate, and he has been going around talking about this possibility for the past week or so.  Is it possible he knows something we don’t?

Time will tell.  And don’t let the naysayers (those who claim a ticket with both of them is impossible) confuse you: THEY can’t say for certain any more than anyone else.

Peace.

I’m a rabid supporter of Obama but if by some circumstance he loses out to Hillary I don’t think it’s the end of the World.
A turn at V.P. may not be such a bad idea.
He’d be free to travel the world as a spokesman for the the U.S. getting to really know the worlds leaders and them him.
A Clinton/Obama ticket would be unbeatable.
He wouldn’t be burdened with the insurmountable task to fix the fuc* ups of the current village idiot and his republican minions in his first term.
He would have some influence within the Clintons WH while laying the groundwork for his eventual Presidency.
Or am I being too optimistic?

The quotes below address my sentiments very closely.  The Media and Hillary supporters make her sound like something special, well she is not.

Granny Doc on the daily- Kos stated the following:

“Senator Clinton has no more experience with the day to day details of running the Executive Office than any other Presidential spouse.  Standing around with Chelsea while dance groups perform in exotic costumes, staying in palaces, and using the military and Secret Service agencies in droves to protect their persons, and generally making her way around the stage of public appearances, is NOT experience in executive management.  It does provide diplomatic experience, however.  Maybe Hillary could be made Ambassador to Urdustan?”

Experience may not matter once in the White House. But first you have to get to the White House.

Well, actually, first you have to get the nomination, and then you have to get to the White House.

Obama’s campaign is in a bit of a pickle right now.

Hillary has begun to attack. Whether you like it or not, attack ads work. If Obama does not answer her attack ads many will assume the ads must be correct.

If he does answer the ads, and especially if he attacks back, his whole campaign falls apart because he has staked his entire campaign on his claim that he is a new and different kind of politician and wants a new and different kind of politics.

Hillary has not run on such a campaign promise. She has never presented herself as something new and different or anything other than a politician.

If Obama counters with attack ads he shows himself to be just a regular politician after all.

Should Obama become the nominee he still faces the experience issue with McCain on the General. While experience may not matter much once in the White House, again, you have to win the General Election and get in the White House to prove the theory.

I am afraid that McCain and the Republican smear machine will make mincemeat of Obama and his record especially as regards the experience issue.

Democratic activists are trying to make this election a referendum on the Iraq War vote. That may win you the nomination in the primary season. But it is slim pickings for a General Election. A majority of Americans, while they want us to get out of Iraq, don’t really care for esoteric arguments about who was right first on getting us there. And Iraq has slipped to number 2 or number 3 (depending on who is polling) behind the economy as the number 1 issue in the General Election. So Obama’s chant ‘I was right on Iraq from the beginning,’ is not going to get much leverage in the General Election.

McCain should choose Hillary as his running mate so she can play both sides as usual.

“Paix” French for “Peace.”

^ French at all.  Just know a few clichés.  LOL.  Paix?  Say what?

Expat:

“As the French say, “viva la