Usually do not deserve replies, because they usually do not respond.  I will not question your sincerity.  It is simple, your question is answered by the selection process.  Your choices original choices have not made it to the finals because the selection is done by the Plutocracy, the wealthy are protecting their interests.  The thee selected candidates offer very similar platforms.  I two was hoping for Kucinich, but it was not to be.  I am against the war and liked his health plan.

So out of the selected 3, I prefer Obama, he offers a freshness while the other two offer yesterday politics. If we are lucky, we may see how far the freshness goes.

Bush has made a joke of the rule of law.  Pardon Libby is an example.  Your selected issues that seem to concern you,  exclude the deaths of Millions in Iraq. Why is that?

Our government is planned for us by the elite, decisions have little to do with you or me. We do not live in a Democracy, instead a plutocracy government of the wealthy.

Our candidates are selected for us by special interests, they we are provided the illusion that we get to choose.

Your last thread you seemed a dweller on black issues, Hillary is doing the same thing via her representatives.  I suggest, Hillary and crew via the last few weeks with Ferraro’s raciest black comments are a politicl tactic to attract bigots to the Hillary side preparing and targeting racists in Pennsylvania.  Not being apologetic makes Ferraro a raciest. Comments in your last thread mentions black several times associated with non issues, this seems racist to me.

Your dislike of Obama is you choice, but using the color mantra, shows your hand.

Color or sex of the candidate have no substance, therefor they should not be shouted about like issues. Ferraro may not really be a raciest, but her planned attack comments are exactly that.

Welcome DustinORD,

I’m an anti-corporatist and pretty much a populist myself. Can’t think of a ‘catchy’ name for it though, so I’m registered as an Independent. Some would argue that makes me an ‘idealist’ because I honestly do vote for the person over the party.Some would even have me imprisoned for such a view.

The problem is that political parties no longer represent any particular set of principals on behalf of those who would be considered the candidates offered for office, or even the electorate that is a member of that particular party.

Now I say that’s a ‘problem’ but maybe it’s not. I don’t know. For a populist, I would think that it is better to examine each candidates views, in respect to the issues, and what one believes are most important to the whole.

But, that requires a deeper look at the issues as well as the candidates, and what Louise would call looking from the inside out.

If you have so far been unable to find anything difference between the democratic candidates other than campaigning style, you may need sort of a crash course in the issues as well as the candidates. It would even involve a bit of an exercise in considering what YOU consider to be ‘experience’.

And, since you say that you’re a populist, and you didn’t hear either of these candidates speak to the issues that matter to you, we’d have to know what issues those are, and why you term them as populist.

So, what are the issues that really matter to you? (even if you don’t confine it to the vague meaning of ‘populist’ since I could call some of the same ‘socialist’ issues just as easily as I could call them ‘populist’.

Kind of depends on what they are. So, maybe you should spell them out. Do like a little outline of what things are most important to you.

For most Americans in this point in our history, the WAR is the most important issue. But, that may not be the case with you.

So again, it depends.

Believe me though, there is far more of a difference in these candidates than their respective campaign styles.

For me at least, Hillary and John McCain represent the issues/positions/policies of the 20th Century. The same that brought us the corptocracy that we have now, and surely we can rely on them continuing that.

If that’s OK with you, and you’re happy with things as they are…then you can lean back, kick up your feet, and just relax. As george bush would say..“eventually, we’re all gonna be dead anyway”.

But, if you’re thinking that business as usual might not be the best way to go, then you might want to check out the positions and policies that Obama has on his website.

That would probably be the first place to find out what those differences are.

He may reject bigotry. but he didn’t turn down money from one. And don’t kid yourself if it comes down to it, Obama will gladly take my vote as would any of the candidates. You do your own homework. I do not lie and I read what I read about Obama.

In his debate as you can see it was like pulling teeth to get Obama to to say anything negative.

Did you happen to watch the debate which part is below. “Not written by me.”

Barak Obama has made many eloquent speeches without really saying anything. Getting him pinned down on a position about anything is quite a challenge.

In the recent debate it took his opponent and the moderator a long time to get him to make a solid stand on the Farakahn statement of support that was recently reported. He just wouldn’t reject the support. He kept saying that he had denounced anti-semitic comments by the Nation of Islam leader but just wouldn’t come out and reject his support until, finally, after repeated prodding he did. Or did he? He said if the word ‘reject’ pleased Clinton then ok. But he never did, and still hasn’t stated plainly and without question that he rejected the support of Farakahn as well as his divisive rhetoric

Sorry to disappoint you, but ‘no’ I am not a bigot. Stating facts does not make a person a bigot.

Your opinion is “Hillary has no integrity.” Mine is that Obama hasn’t any.

I am not against those who vote for Obama, if they have done their research and decide he is best for the job, but not people who vote for him or are pressured to vote for him because he is black.
The same for Hillary; vote for her because you think she is best qualified to run our country not because she is a woman.

Our country is in bad shape thanks to Bush and his regime so I feel we can’t make any mistakes by voting for inexperienced candidates.

Debra Istvanik-strotman

Great job taking the focus off Hillary and her so called experience.

Your Farrakhan comment is old hat and been put to bed, but not by you. You are part of the kitchen sink, great job, are you a bigot too. Your black comment supports that you are.

In the long run there is not much different between the candidates on the issues, but there is a big difference in integrity, Hillary has none.

Cyrena:

While I agree with almost everything you said above (yikes!), I take issue with this:

“Just a thought here…as a general rule, when someone can pick up on the fact that someone else is lying, the result is that we/they/anyone, is then likely to DISREGARD anything else that person says, even if they might be telling the truth.”

You have, numerous times, told me not to claim to speak for others.  And you have, numerous times, claimed that you do not speak for others.  Yet here you are, speaking for others.  Please refrain from doing this especially since you demand that others not do it.

As for, “Sounds like you’re teaming up with some of the others on this thread,” many people can disagree with you without being a “team.”  This accusation is of a piece with other, insupportable, accusations that you have made and continue to make.

Peace.

Clinton Attacks on Obama May Boost McCain
  By Sarah Baxter
  The Australian
  Monday 10 March 2008

  Fresh from her victories in three out of four states last week and surging back in the national polls, Hillary Clinton has crafted a new strategy for winning the Democratic nomination that she believes will legitimise her claim to be president.

  Clinton thinks she can win a majority of the popular vote in primaries and caucuses, even if she cannot overtake Barack Obama, her rival, in the number of “pledged” delegates who will vote to choose the candidate at the Democratic national convention in August.

  The New York senator has unnerved Obama, who has been left reeling by a series of errors from senior policy advisers. The two opponents face an ugly six-week battle in the run-up to a potentially pivotal primary in Pennsylvania next month.

Continued at the link

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031008E.shtml

Meantime, I got this in my email today from the Obama campaign…they send out stuff regularly, to do updates, and because this is their main source for campaign contributions.

Cyrena,

It’s tough to think of two states more different than Wyoming and Mississippi.

But we won Wyoming on Saturday, and we just learned that we won Mississippi by a large margin tonight.

Between those two states, we picked up enough delegates to erase the gains by Senator Clinton last Tuesday and add to our substantial lead in earned delegates. And in doing so we showed the strength and breadth of this movement.

But just turn on the news and you’ll see that Senator Clinton continues to run an expensive, negative campaign against us. Each day her campaign launches a new set of desperate attacks.

They’re not just attacking me; they’re attacking you.
Over the weekend, an aide to Senator Clinton attempted to diminish the overwhelming number of contests we’ve won by referring to places we’ve prevailed as “boutique” states and our supporters as the “latte-sipping crowd.”

I’m not sure how those terms apply to Mississippi and Wyoming—or Virginia, Iowa, Louisiana, or Idaho for that matter.

I know that our victories in all of these states demonstrate a rejection of this kind of petty, divisive campaigning.

But the fact remains that Senator Clinton’s campaign will continue to attack us using the same old Washington playbook. And now that John McCain is the Republican nominee, we are forced to campaign on two fronts.

It’s up to you to fight back. Please make a donation of $25 today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/math

Thank you,

Barack

Debra Istvanik-Strotman writes:

•  “….When Farrakhan came out to support Obama and contribute to Obama’s political aspirations Obama would not say a bad word against Farrakhan. Actually, he said, “He has nothing negative to say about Farrakhan.”…”

So Debra, do you have a reference for your ‘quote’ here? And did Obama actually say….

HE has nothing negative to say about Farrakhan?

Who exactly is ‘he’? I think you wanted us to assume that this is Obama’s direct quote, and that it is HE Obama, that said that HE Obama, had ‘nothing negative to say’ about Farrakhan.

Yes, it would appear that in your haste to lie and smear and all of the standard stuff, you attempted to present your own words, as a quote from Obama.

But you see, there are several million people who have actually HEARD Barack Obama say what he has to say about Louis Farrakhan, because Tim Russert quizzed him relentlessly on this very subject at the last debate between Clinton and Obama.

Yep, it was on TV and EVERYTHING. I guess you missed it.

So, tell us again about the source of your own quote…the one where Obama says that he has nothing negative to say about Farrakhan. I don’t think I’ll believe you otherwise.

Then, when you’ve finished with that, could you also explain why Barack Obama was OBLIGATED to say something negative about him?

Meantime, we might just think that you’re making all of this shit up, and that’s it’s just your personal opinion, and that you’re attempting to pass it off as something that Obama actually said.

Sounds like you’re teaming up with some of the others on this thread, who eventually wind up with shit on their faces.

Just a thought here…as a general rule, when someone can pick up on the fact that someone else is lying, the result is that we/they/anyone, is then likely to DISREGARD anything else that person says, even if they might be telling the truth.  In YOUR case, you started out your comment with a lie, so that pretty much throws the rest of your comments into the swamp/lie pool as well.

Such a waste of energy.

I’ll wait for that source of your quote, and your explanation for why Barack Obama was required to make negative comments about Farrakhan, and it wasn’t enough for Obama to reject and denounce Farrakhan as the anti-Semitic demigod that he is, thereby assuring anyone who was listening, (or could read it on the record later) that HE - Barack Obama - rejects all forms of bigotry.

(I guess that means he wouldn’t want YOUR vote anyway).

Obama may fool some of the people, but not all of us.
This man has spent more time in office promoting himself than taking care of the people’s business in D.C…

I have heard him use other’s speeches as his own. When Farrakhan came out to support Obama and contribute to Obama’s political aspirations Obama would not say a bad word against Farrakhan. Actually, he said, “He has nothing negative to say about Farrakhan.

Obama was not shy about asking for help from men from the violent Weather Underground movement when he wanted to be in the Illinois senate. In addition, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Do not kid yourself that Obama puts the public first; His first thought is of what he wants, and he wants to be the first black president.

As for the super delegates, they are a sad lot. Many that intended to back Hillary are being pressured, as blacks, to vote for Obama and not for whom they believe will be best for our country. They have been told that this is the time for a black president and if they do not back Obama they are ruining their big chance.

Add the media, who have for the time being made Obama their media darling and you have a stacked deck for all the wrong reasons.

I will vote Hillary because she has the best health insurance plan, best plan to deal with the recession, and get us out of the mess Bush and Cheney have created.

I am frankly tired of the news media; including the Daily News do their little cartoons and hatchet jobs on Hillary Clinton. Should Hillary lose to Obama, you will then have the privilege of watching the news media turn on him quicker than you can blink.

Do not worry. Obama will be the nominee.  Surely the super delegates realize that to snatch the nomination from the leader (Obama) and give it to Hillary (I still don’t understand using her given name instead of Clinton or Rodham-Clinton when she campaigns) will risk the greatest riots this country has ever seen.  That will certainly lead to the election of McCain.

Maani,

Marie’s selected inclusion of this specific comment is what is tacky, and has definite racial slurs, whether you recognize them or not…This is part of ‘question’ #4, except of course we know it isn’t really a ‘question’ that has anything to do with influencing superdelegates, and is far more like the tacky, distasteful, and divisive comments that a Tim Russert or even YOU would put forth.

•  “One of your supporters, former Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder, suggested in a television interview that if you do not secure the nomination, the Denver convention will be in “chaos.”

My OWN response, (where you say that I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth) is simply the irony here, where Marie actually has the ignorance to then bring up ‘charges’ of racism against Hillary, (whom she –marie-obviously DOES support).

Marie’s own very willful decision to cherry-pick the above comment to include in her piece is so obviously in keeping with the underlying racism of the Hillary campaign as to be laughable.

Meantime, maybe you should check the reality of the demographics on the ground in the 8th year of the 21st Century, just as a sample of how and WHERE the dynamics of racism are now situated.

From CNN, on the Mississippi Democratic primary exit polls:
•  “Of those who voted for Obama, 42 percent said they would be satisfied if Clinton was the nominee, according to the exit polls.- Among Clinton voters, only 16 percent said they would be satisfied if Obama wins the party’s top spot.”

Gee, I wonder whose supporters are most likely to create disruption, chaos and confusion if she isn’t the nominee.

And these are the statistics from a state as highly polarized by race as Hillary’s own home state of Arkansas, and neighboring Alabama.

•  “According to the Associated Press, only two other primary states were as racially polarized—neighboring Alabama, and Clinton’s former home state of Arkansas.”

This pretty much confirms what we’ve seen over the past 60 or so years from these states. As a result, these states generally go red (repug) at the end of the day (general election) anyway.

Still, the outcome of this Mississippi democratic primary, as well as the Texas caucus in favor of Obama DOES give a voice to those who have been so historically disenfranchised, politically and socio-economically, for centuries. It’s a sign of the much needed change that may be the only thing that can avert a complete collapse of the entire nation.

Barack Obama is the only one who seems to get that larger picture, and I’m honestly not certain that even HE recognizes the full ramifications of it. The ‘change’ he speaks of may be correlated with ‘hope’ on an ideological and even an emotional level, which cannot be overlooked.

But in real terms, based on where this country is now, we have NO CHOICE but change. To remain in the politics and leadership of the OLD 20th Century will result in total collapse of this entire nation, sooner rather than later.

So Maani, while there will indeed continue to be people who will engage in the dirty politics that include racism,it is YOU who are naïve, in your refusal to acknowledge that we the people are facing more complex issues than the bullshit that you prefer to focus on.

There is something else called the REALITY, and the URGENCY of that reality is at hand.

As for your argument about it being black folks who support Obama, I’ve already told you a million times, it’s a dead argument, because black folks only represent 13% of the US population.

I have to say first, that I am an Obama supporter. However, I know why I do not like Hillary, I don’t trust her, I do not believe she is sincere and I beleive she has a more narrowly focused special interests agenda.

Not to mention her shrillness which on its own, would not disqualify her from my ballot. 

I trust that Obama has the competence we are sorely lacking at this juncture.  I beleive he is sincere and really wants whats best for the country and if that is true for Hillary as well, than I am just not feeling it. 

I beleive Hillary is still reeling from her dashed sense of inevitability for the nomination. How arrogant is that?!  We already have someone in the White house who is behaving as though he were a King.

MMC:

You are FAR too hung up on what is “liberal,” and apparently do not even even know the definition of the term.  So let’s look at it:

Webster:

“Liberal” (most relevant definition as an adjective): “associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.”

“Liberal” (most relevant definition as a noun): “one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways; an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights.”

As you can see, neither of these two definitions is easily applicable to “war” at all, since liberalism is primarily concerned with individual rights, freedoms and participation” - all of which I agree with and support, and, indeed, these defintions clearly make me a liberal in the defined senses of the term.

Now, if you want to introduce an alternative ACCEPTED defintion of “liberal” that will support your position, I would be more than happy to consider it and see whether or to what degree it applies to me.  Oh, by the way, I do not “support” war, much less unjustified war.  Nor, for all your spin, does Hillary “support” war, much less unjustified war, in the sense that you clearly mean the term “support” (since your preferred term for her is “warmonger”).

Peace.  (liberal peace…)

Simple fact is the three presidential candidates offer subtle differences on issues of substance.  Selected for us by the elite,  special interests using the Mass Media as a sales tool. Special interest In order to keep and maintain positions of wealth and power, have lead us down this yellow brick road,  this illusion into thinking we are going someplace different.  We live in a dream world, if any of you believe Hillary, McCain or even Obama offer much difference. 

My preference is for Obama, only because he offers a fresh look and is the best speaker of the three.  A mad woman and and old mad man do not seem appealing to me.  For some reason I cannot stand Hillary, maybe because she raises goose bumps on my neck for some unknown reason.  Maybe it is because I look at her and McCain and even Bush as the same. Simple fact is I am tired of looking at her, listening to her and her lack of compassion is appalling.  Millions died in Iraq, Ho Hum.

Obama offers charisma, and even seems to have a higher degree of enlightenment than the others.  In the end it will make little difference who wins the White house, but I guess I can always hope I am wrong.

And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Peace.

MMC:

“Between you and Hillary you sound like you would rather McCain then anyone else, besides Hillary.”

To the contrary.  My statement does not indicate non-support.  My statement reflects concern about how a candidate will stand up to the kind of blistering, withering attacks that the right wing is so famous for.  It represents a belief that, despite the prevailing “common wisdom” (which is often neither common nor wise) the “other” candidate (yup, the one who voted to give the dimmest president in history the power to wage an immoral and unjustified preemptive war of aggression) still remains more likely to be able to do so.

As I have stated ad nauseam, I will support the Dem nominee, whoever that is.

Peace.

^ you are wrong!  Such a dark prophecy!  But my worst fear is you are correct!  If you are correct then we are truly doomed!  It will be the end of us!

Cyrena:

You say, “Meantime, on question number 1 for Obama – nobody knows these folks, and nobody cares, including the super delegates.”

My reponse to Marie’s question would be: even if no one knows or cares about Ayers (and to think that the GOP won’t attempt to make SURE we know is hopelessly naive), the issue is really a broader one about “skeletons in the closet.”  And although she only chose one (and, to my mind, the least important one), along with Ayers will come Obama’s betrayal of his constituency in the Exelon matter (and his acceptance of almost $200,000 in campaign donations after that betrayal), the betraying of his mentor (Alice Palmer) during his first campaign for state senator, the continued revelations of the Rezko trial, and any other “cannon fodder” issues that are certain to surface.

So don’t be so cocksure that your candidate will be able to weather a concerted and focused right-wing “attack and smear” machine.  And you can bet that, if Obama and Clinton continue to run a close race, this question - who will be better able to withstand potential “swift-boating” - will indeed be much on the minds of the superdelegates.

Peace.

Cyrena:

Are you even aware of the ways in which you argue out of both sides of your mouth?

First, with regard to “What steps do you plan to ensure that your supporters, if disappointed in the outcome, do not throw the convention into chaos or refuse to support the eventual nominee?,” you say, “And you mention that HILLARY has been accused of racists strategies? Doesn’t get much tackier than this.”  You apparently see this as racist in some regard.

Yet you then say, “Number 3 is a stupid question because he’s obviously been attracting ENOUGH old white folks, because he’s winning so far, and by a substantial margin. Old the old white folks I know are voting for him.”

So which is it: are most of his supporters black, thus making the first statement “racist,” or is he attracting supporters across the board, which would make your claim of “racism” phony?

Peace.

Depending on how you view it,the Clintons are either a garbage dump or a treasure trove of dirt. The Clintons have too much baggage and have proven themselves, through the primary process, to be something the Democrats can’t get behind, defend, have faith in or be proud of. And that says about all.

That question for Clinton has been on my mind too, it goes along with the many faces/voices of Hillary alert i feel tingling in my spine every time she shape-shifts. Also the question of how she will be able to deal with adversity. She has stated in answers to several questions in the debates that she wants these moratoriums on saving social security or the lending crisis, but in the real world you can’t just call a time out while you try to assess the problem. For example, she lost 12 states while trying to get a handle on what to do next, and when she finally figured it out, it was to behave just like Karl Rove would. Monger up some fear…. Boo to that. i have low confidence in her ability to perform in a B-type world with her A-type personality.

As for the convention questions, i have this to say: if one candidate goes into the convention with the lead in all categories but super-spoilers, and the other walks out as the nominee, then i’m all for burning the party down. It’s not really ours anymore anyway. Just hang it all and i’ll move to Scotland in search of a better life, just like my ancestors did in coming here.

One more tid bit not mentioned in the article but has been stuck in my craw all day. FL and MI broke the explicitly outlined rules laid down by the DNC. How much more clear can you be? Don’t do this or you will lose your delegates. Today the pundit jabber is all about a realistic chance of a do over at the very least in FL… Speculation abounds as to how the candidates should handle the matter, so why doesn’t Howard Dean save them both some face by making a statement to this effect: they broke the rules, losing the delegates is the consequence. This is absolutely not an attempt to disenfranchise voters. Any voters who feel upset with the enforcement of the clearly stated penalties should take the matter up with their state party committee. If we decide that rules don’t matter, how are we any different than the Bush administration? Thank you and have a good night.

Whoa!! It just keeps escalating. My jaw was on the floor by the time I got to this:

•  “What steps do you plan to ensure that your supporters, if disappointed in the outcome, do not throw the convention into chaos or refuse to support the eventual nominee?”

And you mention that HILLARTY has been accused of racists strategies? Doesn’t get much tackier than this.

Meantime, on question number I for Obama – nobody knows these folks, and nobody cares, including the super delegates.

Number 2 for Obama is about national security, and I think I can help him out with that, though I also think he’s already figured it out. First, if it’s the kind of national security that you’re thinking of Marie, (terrorist attacks and all that) nobody believes that stuff, and we’re sick of hearing it. If national security is all John has, he might as well hang it up now. American’s are tired of the fear mongering.

Number 3 is a stupid question because he’s obviously been attracting ENOUGH old white folks, because he’s winning so far, and by a substantial margin. Old the old white folks I know are voting for him.

And like I said, the above part of number 4…wow! That is one super tacky question? Yikes? What were you thinking? Oh, I know..you weren’t.

As for this:

•  “or Obama and Clinton: If you have any idea about how to resolve the party’s miserable dilemma, put on a unifying convention and win the White House despite all this, would you please let us know what it is?”

I don’t think you’re gonna here from Obama on this. I know I sure hope he doesn’t respond to it. Clinton might.

But, it’s more of the same old shit that simply prevents any unification; because it’s not about ‘the party’ it’s about the country. The WHOLE country. And Obama shouldn’t have time to get down in the gutter and play the mudslinging thing with you folks who are only into petty rivalries about ‘the party’.

When he unifies the COUNTRY, (which is what we have to do FIRST, but he’d doing quite a job so far) then the party will fall into place.

Like sam says, IF we even last that long.

Hillary is unelectable, not because she is a woman, but because she is the woman who didn’t dump Bill when the rest of us did—when he looked us in the eye, pointed his bony finger at us, and LIED.

Obama is unelectable, not because he is flawed any other way, but because he is black.

McCain could win by default, assuming that he has knuckled under sufficiently to satisfy the Bush puppetmasters, but that might be the reason that there will be no election: because McCain cannot be trusted to do as he is told and not as he might want to do.

McCain has made all the right noises for them, certifying that he is a lying, warmongering, oil thief, but should he ever in his miserable life so much as ACT like he might make an independent decision or try to do the right thing, he would have to be eliminated, as in terminated.