Why not Hillary? Let me count the ways (we can lose with her).

1. Her baggage. Forget Whitewater, remember instead her investment return with someone who had business pending before her then governor-husband. A whopping 10,000%. Outside of the likes Enron, who makes that kind of money ethically?

2. Her husband. Bill was given a half interest in a 100 million dollar company by a Canadian oil and gas guy. They then jetted around the world, dealing with South American narco-presidents and Central Asian dictators.

3. Her history. As candidate, she surrounded herself with neo-libs who never saw a trade treaty they didn’t like, and with military hard-liners who make my hair curl. What is it about her senate voting record that recommends herself to progressives such as Sheer, or did I misjudge him?

4. Her personality. One tough lady, or so she tried hard to make us think. Who in their right mind would deny that she will make Obama’s residency in the White House a living hell? A VP can be controlled, you say? How easily we forget.

Any senior (in age) Democrat who wish to endorse Hillary as VP must be on statins, the ‘Thief of Memory’. (See http://www.spacedoc.net/lipitor_thief_of_memory.html

Why not Hillary? Let me count the ways (we can lose with her).

1. Her baggage. Forget Whitewater, remember instead her investment return with someone who had business pending before her then governor-husband. A whopping 10,000%. Outside of the likes Enron, who makes that kind of money ethically?

2. Her husband. Bill was given a half interest in a 100 million dollar company by a Canadian oil and gas guy. They then jetted around the world, dealing with South American narco-presidents and Central Asian dictators.

3. Her history. As candidate, she surrounded herself with neo-libs who never saw a trade treaty they didn’t like, and with military hard-liners who

If Obama takes Hillary as VP he will lose my vote.  Plain and simple.  I have supported him since the very beginning because he was supposed to represent change.  If he brings the cancer with him into the White House than why bother going to chemo in the first place?

If this happens, then my last great hope for any kind of political difference will die and I just won’t bother to vote.

What would be the difference?

cyrena,
how funny you are.  Your paranoia is showing.  Bert? No.  Hillary supporter? No.  Hate Obama? No.  Hillary and Obama are practically the same person politically.  They have identical voting records.  They both see “the markets” as the solution to every problem.  A day after winning the nomintion Obama engaged in the traditional democratic candidates election year ritual of “reassuring Wall Street” of his undying devotion.  This has become necessary because during the primary season the front runners for the nomination have to play to the party’s leftist base in order to win and then when its over they have to reassure those who own the country that they are really not quite crazy after all.  Notice that he hasn’t mentioned his early opposition to the war since mid April when it looked like he had the nomination sewn up.  Now his position on the war is that he doesn’t know what his position on the war is other than that keeping thousands of troops there against the wishes of the people of Iraq and their government sounds like a good idea espeially since those permanent military bases have already been built.  If he were not a corporate lapdog there isn’t any way he could have won the nomination.  You are not familiar with how the one party system operates.  You still have fantasies about there being more than one party here.  With 325 million people in the country we would have at least five major parties if this were a healthy democracy.  Two candidates of the money party can not possibly represent the hopes and aspirations of 325 million people, which is why upwards of 40% of the electorate doesn’t bother to vote anymore.  We have the same kind of sham elections they used to have in Soviet Russia.  Always only two candidates - from the same party of course.

Gee troublesum/bert

•  “If Obama were not a corporate lackey he wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the nomination.”

Now don’t you just prove your position with this. Yep, another Geraldine Ferraro. They clearly biased cynicism is always distasteful.

•  “..They have a way of getting rid of the ones who aren’t. ..”

Ah…the infamous ‘they’. But yes, I know what you mean. “They” do have a tendency to do this. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and Bobby Kennedy come to mind, but there’ve been dozens of others, (including current whistleblowers) who have been ‘gotten rid of’.

So, Obama has so far been smart enough to get around ‘them’. And, we’ve not only seen this first hand for well over a year, but we’ve talked at length, on this very board, about why ‘they’ were unable to prevent him from getting the nomination. The PEOPLE who have supported Barack Obama to the extent that GAVE him the nomination, don’t consider themselves to be ‘corporate lackey’s’. You argument is bogus, based on your own visceral dislike for the guy. I’ve long ago suggested that you should just ADMIT that you hate him, for whatever the reasons, (you don’t even have to provide any) and then just get on with it. It was save a lot of time and energy on your part.

As for Silverstein’s old article, I just recently came across an excellent rebuttal to it, but I couldn’t find it when I was posting the previous comment. I’ll look for it again, but I’m not likely to spend a whole lot of time on it, since it really is very insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

As for Nader, nobody said that he hasn’t ANY credentials, or that he hasn’t accomplished things in the public interest. But your suggestion or inference that he is somehow politically and economically ‘independent’ is a not so funny joke. Nader has consider support from established repugs, and that’s just the way it is. Needless to say, there is ALWAYS hypocrisy in the mix when any one of us criticizes another for the exact same practices or behavior that they’ve indulged in themselves. Meantime, while Nader may be a nice guy and all, he still didn’t do the US public any good in the last two presidential elections that he put himself in. Another reality.

Thanks for the belated (by decades) congrats on my toilet training graduation. As is apparent, I didn’t stop with that. Nope. We’re what you call ‘lifetime learners’ in my neck of the woods, and in my own working class family dynasty. Yep. We love ‘nerds’.

So, maybe you should try that. (extended learning that is). Now of course I won’t hesitate to caution that one cannot get the most important stuff from the books, or an institution of higher learning. Common sense, and a recognition of the equality of humanity is most assuredly not the thing that one can learn from a text. Neither is good judgment. But, surrounding oneself with intelligent objectivity is a first step.

I’m really sorry you’re so miserable troublesum bert. I wish I could help, but I’ve already made tons of recommendations, and the rest is up to you. I can’t carry you to the mental health care professionals. (I’ve got a bad back).

I’m also sorry (for you only) that “YOUR GIRL” didn’t win the nomination, ONLY because of how traumatic it’s obviously been for you personally. But the real issue here, is that if she HAD won it, that would have been catastrophic for THE REST OF US..and the damage would have been fatal. (not something that we could get help from the docs on).

So, because a larger part of the voting population has better judgment than the other part, Obama won the nomination. If the US population wanted another neo-liberal corporate lacky as president, they would have selected Hillary.

That TOO is a no-brainer. (or it should be).

Mr. Scheer and others: why not consider the following.

Consider General Wesley Clark for the VP slot on the ticket.

My reason for concern: I have been voting a straight Democratic ticket since 1954, and recently I have grown sick and tired of unnecessarily loosing presidential elections. So let’s get this one right!

Our reason for concern: actually there are many good reasons for selecting Wes Clark, but one stands out as overwhelming. Obama’s perceived inexperience in the area of military preparedness. (Voting for military appropriations does not sufficiently project this image.)

This issue is more important than many people think, not just because the Bush administration and many other leaders in both parties want to stay in Iraq, maintain the war on terrorism, and attack Iran as soon as sufficient pretexts can be manufactured, but because there is a strong likelihood that the Bush administration will orchestrate an October Surprise by attacking Iran.

As you well know, this would catapult military experience and military preparedness to the front burner, and would very likely rally many voters around the Bush-McCain position. I suggest that Obama shield his most vulnerable Achilles’ heel.

Wes Clark (mainly because he is the best known general with acceptable positions on war) has the credentials to shield our perceived weak spot, and legitimize a slow withdrawal from Iraq as well as negotiations with Iran.

Many voters will want to feel comfortable on both of these issues and Wes Clark will provide a huge measure of comfort to many on this issue.

cyrena,
If Obama were not a corporate lackey he wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the nomination.  They have a way of getting rid of the ones who aren’t.  Secondly, you said that the article by Silverstein was full of errors but didn’t name a single error.  You probably thought this wouldn’t be noticed surrounded as it was by excessive and meaningless verbiage but I kinda noticed.  Third you implied a lack of integrity on Nader’s part but on the contrary even the people who hate him are convinced of his honesty and integrity.  And before I forget, congratulations on passing toilet training.

Troublesum, part 1 of lesson

My confession on this.

•  “I’m glad you didn’t try to refute Nader’s assertion about Obama’s corporate candidacy.  Its too well documented.”

I didn’t try to refute it, because I didn’t bother to listen to him. (Nader) Now I MIGHT have, (watched/listened/read) except for a couple of things. You ALSO offered as ‘documentation’, an old and highly disputed piece by Ken Silverstein in Harper’s Magazine. As it so happens, (in part because I read Harper’s pretty extensively) I’d already read that piece, and a few others by him, and I knew that the Silverstein piece was laced with propaganda and out-right errors. Since you listed that first, I admit that I made the connection that the more recent stuff from Nader, was likely to be of dubious resources as well.

So, based on that, as well as my own tracking of Ralph Nader over the decades and through all of his perennial appearances as a presidential candidate, I knew it wasn’t worth my time. And, just so you don’t go off on one of your purely subjective responses; that does NOT mean that I don’t thoroughly appreciate Amy Goodman and her co-hosts on Democracy NOW!, or that I don’t also read a variety of other independent media, because I do. Just happens to be ‘what’ *I DO* at this point in my life, so get over that troublesum. I’m grown, pay my own bills, wipe my own ass, and I can read, and reason, and come to logical analysis that separates the subjective bias (sometimes more evident than others) and the propaganda, (AKA SPIN) from objective FACTS, based on an even larger SET of *FACTS*. In other words Troublesum, MY ‘database’ is OBVIOUSLY far larger, and far better organized than yours appears to be.

As an aside, the matter that something/anything, is “documented”, doesn’t make it so. I think I just explained why that is. The Bible is “well documented” but that’s pretty ‘relative’ as well, don’t you think? Can you actually prove any part of it? Like say, The Parting of the Red Seas.?

But no, I didn’t listen to the Nader thing, so I wouldn’t have attempted to ‘refute’ it. Still, I’ve YET to find ANY of the type of ‘corporate connections’ that you’ve spent so much time and energy trying to attach to Barack Obama. (and it’s not for lack of trying) In short, they don’t exist, but the reason they don’t exist has more to do with your own misunderstanding of the basics anyway, so I’m going to break it down for you just once more, because you’re freebie lessons have run out with this one. This is the *adult* version, so it’s assumed that you have at least SOME inkling/awareness of the basics of what Corporatism actually is, and how it connects to everything else.

The Corporate Oligarchy is the power structure that has been at the base of our form of government for a very long time now. It didn’t just happen. The political connections are decades old, and there are the SAME ENTITY. The Corporatism that has defined the dynamics of the US domestic and foreign policy of the US has been the same for at least 4 decades. We were warned. No one paid attention.

Wall Street+Dynasties+DLC+GOP+neocons+neoliberals+lobbies+CORPS+ PNAC
+AIPAC+MIC+++everything else+CHANGE=A Corporate Oligarchy that is (as are all) a form of a Fascist or other Authoritarian State. 

Again, that has developed over an extended period of time. Most of the ‘players’ in this regime have been long established, and…drum roll here…BARACK OBAMA IS *NOT* ONE OF THEM. Neither were either of his parents. Same for his spouse and her relatives. And you cannot make the man something he is NOT, just as you can take no ‘credit’ for what and who he IS!

It’s that simple troblesum. You can do your best to create that in your mind, and it’s obvious that you will continue to do so, for whatever your reasons happen to be. But the reality is that you just can’t make it so, if it isn’t.

Part 2 of final lesson

I’ve mentioned before, that if I have stock in Airline XYZ, it doesn’t mean that I’m politically tied to that Corporation/Wall Street, or by extension the FAA (the fed part) or by extension the Oil Industry, (because airplanes use lots of gas) or to the MIC, just because Airline XYZ sometimes loans their jetliners to the US Military when they’re fighting these little dirty side wars. (been doing that for years as well).

This is basically what you’re suggesting with Obama’s invisible thread connections to the Corptocracy. The reality of the forest and the Big Sky is that NO political candidate is or can be completely disconnected from some (or many) corporate entities, because such a condition cannot exist. It would mean that the political candidates were COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED from ANY of what reality dictates. Like, what America is. Like, how America even manages to exist as an industrialized nation.

So, *you* focus on the minutia of searching for any little ‘thing’ (or in your case, it could be a LARGE ‘thing’) that you can create in your own mind as being something meaningful or relevant, in terms of Barack Obama –THE INDIVIDUAL- irrelevant of what it has to do with Barack Obama as the President of the US.

Now you’re not at all picky about where you collect these rhetorical and irrelevant ‘things’ from, and when one doesn’t seem to ‘stick’ or gain much traction in terms of smear value, you move on to something else, and work that for a while, and then circle back. Fairly typical. As a matter-of-fact, there are lots of appearances of your lot on these threads. Sometimes they come in twins or even triplets. For instance, you could be a twin or a clone of bert. (we haven’t heard from *that* identity since Hillary was soundly beat in the primaries). BUT..maybe that’s actually –you- eh troublesum?

Oh well, we may never know. But the point is that we DO know, that your attempts to create an ‘image’ of someone (be it Obama, or me, or the meter reader) are transparent, and ineffective, because survival depends on truth and reality.

So, that concludes the free part of your advanced education, but it doesn’t stop there. That’s why the truly educated never graduate. So, it might be time to cough up some tuition funds, or at least hire some professional support mechanism, from ALL fields of social and scientific support available. Big hint there.

OH..here are some helpful handouts that you get to keep. My own interest is foreign policy, so there’s a link to some of that here.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

Here are some ‘words from the horse’s mouth, and if you’re planning to continue your ‘career’ in research and analysis, that’s the very FIRST place to start. Begin with the REAL GOODS, -what did he/she ACTUALLY SAY, (not what someone else said they said, or interpreted that they said) as well as what he/she actually DOES, and THEN, (and only then) can you make those determinations, based on your own logic or reason, which may or may not be acceptable to a larger consensus.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/

Some of these are duplicated in the newsroom section, but you can generally find the ‘latest’ on what his positions are, based on the changes that occur on a daily basis, affecting all issues. Compare ALL of these things, (his votes and the legislation he actually sponsors or signs on to) and you’ll get an idea of…reality, the good and the bad.

http://obama.senate.gov/newsroom/

Enjoy the challenge. The discovery of truth and reality can actually be a very rewarding and fulfilling endeavor.

Some media pundits tell us that Hillary would be a good veep choice to attract the votes of so-called “security moms” who supported Clinton but now plan to vote for McCain.

That’s a bad reason to choose Hillary.

See my post below, ‘By Ed Harges, June 19 at 5:45 am’ for an analysis.

I don’t know if Mr. Obama is going to win office; in fact, I very much doubt it.  But I must state, as clear as day, that to pick Mrs. Clinton is suicide; plan and simple.

I hope he loses.  Not because I hate Democrats, or that I don’t love my country.  I do love my country and do hate Democrats so much, but RepubliCons and DLC third wayers more.

I, like Mrs. Powell was for her husband, fear that he’s placing himself in enough danger by simply running for this office. But the Clintons are the most dangerous element Mr. Obama will face if in the Oval Office. I don’t trust her to stay on his side in tough times. I can easily see her having competing press conferences to spite him and Bill CLinton, like some bad SNL skit, hanging around close enough to brand his administration imperiled.

No secret, I don’t trust the Clintons or NAFTA’s Chpt. 11 or Telecom 96 or the screwed up oil drilling royalty contracts.  All the marks of the “Third-way” of triangulation and strangulation that was merely the precursor of Cheney/Bush I & II.

No, Mr. Obama. No to Hillary and Bill.

cyrena
No.  I did not “create a lie” about you being banned from Common Dreams.  I simply made a mistake because of the way you go on in most of your posts its hard to know where your words begin and someone else’s end.  I admit I fond it easy to believe that you would be banned from there.  I’m glad you didn’t try to refute Nader’s assertion about Obama’s corporate candidacy.  Its too well documented.

Allen G writes:

”..Cyrena,

Perhaps, as you say, you don’t expend energy as a Hillary hater.  But you certainly do expend energy in making hysterical and hyperbolic statements…”

I think you have me confused with someone else Allen G. But I’ll agree, there is a lot of energy expended on hysterical and hyperbolic statements on these threads.

Since the determination of such is very subjective, it means that you get to decide that based on your own opinion. Doesn’t mean that others share them.

Your quote from Obama is an example of you (and others) creating similar hyperbole. Here’s your quote from Obama..

”...If the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.’”

Do you disagree with any of that statement? Do you believe that the Iranians or the Syrians should be able to use Iraq to as a staging area to attack ANY other countries? (not that they would, because Israel is the only bully in the ME). But still, is there any part of that statement that you disagree with? If so, tell us which part.

Meantime, AIPAC is trying to shove a resolution through the house, (that Cheney wants) to enforce a naval blockade against Iran. THAT would be an act of war. How do you feel about that? Think Hillary will support it? Apparently it already has 19 Senate sponsors, but I haven’t checked to find out who they are.

Now if Barack Obama were to support such a resolution, I would DEFINITELY have more than a bone to pick with him.

As for the rest of your stuff, it’s all bullshit.

You’re comical troublesum, seeing as how it’s debatable that you can even read yourself.

Didn’t you create the lie that I had been banned from Common Dreams? Yes, as a matter of fact, it was more of the ‘you-said, I-said’ stuff. More lies. You simply never get anything right. The truth was that Nahida had made the comment.

So, you wouldn’t really know what else I read, or how I spend my time..now would you? Nope. And that’s because you don’t know much.

Nope, I’m not paid by Obama’s campaign to do anything. Wish I was though. I could use the money.

So, who are you voting for Troublesum? Will the old Dick Bush campaign reincorporated into the McCain campaign offer you another job? Maybe the old 527 Swiftboat PAC with a new name?

Meantime, I have way more corporate connections than Barack does, so maybe you should stick with just smearing my image. Oh yeah, that’s right. I’m not running for president. No fun there.

cyrena,
If you spent some time reading things other than truthdig reports you would know what Obama’s corporate connections are.  A good place to start is with the Nader interview yeterday at democracynow.org   I first became aware of his extensive corporate ties by reading a lengthy article about them by Ken Silverstein in Harpers Magazine more than a year ago.  Another place you can check out is counterpunch.com   You will find a lot of material there.  Are you paid by the Obama campaign to protet his image?

Clinton for VP would become Clinton for POTUS. Obama would be dead within a year.

Clinto for VP would become Clinton for POTUS. Obama would be dead within a year.

Let’s analyze this hypothetical woman who was planning to vote for Sen. Clinton, but will now vote for McCain unless Clinton is the veep on the Obama ticket:

(1) If this person’s vote-switching is at all rational, it must be based on foreign policy. Why? Because there is NO aspect of domestic policy on which McCain is closer to Clinton than Obama is to Clinton. That goes for economics and tax policy, energy, health care, the environment, civil liberties, abortion rights and other social issues, etc.

(2) On foreign policy, all three candidates are also very, very similar, all having groveled before AIPAC and all that — but Obama seems somewhat less likely to continue the Iraq war indefinitely, somewhat less likely to give in — lock, stock, and barrel — to the right-wing pro-Israel lobby, somewhat less likely to take us to war against Iran, etc. I say only somewhat, because after his speech at AIPAC, among other recent statements, this faint promise of policy change is every day harder to believe in.

So, this hypothetic woman is either completely irrational, or she values maximum pro-Israel, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim belligerence literally above all else in making her choice for President. It trumps every other dad-blasted thing for this voter.

But if our next president doesn’t at least significantly scale back this disastrous foreign policy, the United States faces the prospect of RUIN. This is too high a price to pay to attract women voters like this one, if she even exists any great numbers, especially when polls show that Obama already has a comfortable lead among women voters.

To these ex-Hillary voters who now support McCain, let us all simply bid good riddance.

Wesley Clark is the best choice for the ticket.  He bridges the two camps having been a Clinton surrogate, he has the defense, foreign policy, and national security credentials Obama lacks, he’s a southern white guy, his selection doesn’t result in a vacancy, he’s familiar to people due to his TV appearances, he’s appealing to the god-and-gun-style independents, and he’s smart.  Case closed.

webbedouin:

If you live in a State which is certain to go Dem in November, then please do, vote for McKinney. BUT: If you’re in a swing state, and you vote for McKinney, whatever your intention is, you’d be voting for McCain. And there is NO WAY McCain is preferable to Obama.

So: Solid Blue state: No problem, vote Green.
  Swing State: Don’t be a fool.

I don’t know who this Tarpley guy is, but: It’s Brzezinski, not Bryzinski. It’s Russia, not the Soviet Union. So if you’re quoting that guy directly, he’s an idiot.

Obama’s policy re: Pakistan is NOT that the U.S. should attack it, but that it should not refrain from chasing Al Qaeda in those areas, nominally within Pakistan’s borders, which are NOT under Pakistan’s control. Also, the idea that Pakistan is an ally of anyone is laughable on its face. Musharraf is no one’s ally, certainly not China’s, and certainly not the U.S. Musharraf’s inability to reign in the militants in his own country are as worrisome to China as it is to the U.S. I think, if you study the matter a little bit further, that China would welcome U.S. incursions into Pakistan for the purpose of chasing or killing Al Qaeda (who haven’t been too friendly to China either).

Oh, and btw, the U.S. has already done what Obama proposed. And China has said, get this, nothing. So your fear mongering is unfounded.

Not Clinton - let me count the ways…She has far to many who Hate her from the ‘90’s, which will solidify the Repub Party and She has far to many Ol’ Dems who can’t stand Her and don’t Trust her any longer( Obliterate Iran, RFK and repeated Lies and Racial Attacks ei the Clinton Covert Neo Con Machine)
My hope is that Sen Obama Proves the Democratic Party is THE party of TRUE Patriots and asks SEn Chuck hagel to be VP- We are truely Color blind when it comes to Regaining our Country and Our Constitutional rights.
Sen Hagel Serves many Purposes…Matches Mac in SErvice, Trumps him in Veterans Affairs,A Midwestern ‘Farm Boy’, A Real Compassionate Conservative and he’s had the Balls to go against this Administration On Numerous Occasions- More than I can say for Most Democrats esp Clinton!
No Doubt he will be able to bring over many Old School Republicans and many Independents Too.
To fight the Neo cons which have highjacked Our Country we must fight them from Both sides.Any action Taken against them from just a Democratic President will be viewed & used as a Partisan talking point and discredited.But if the Next Admin represents both parties any legal Actions against Cheney & Co will be viewed as a National Effort for Justice.
I encourage all my fellow Democrats to consider Sen Hagels Qualifications and ‘value Added Benefits’ and encourage Sen Obama to look to Him for assistance in the numerous issues facing Our country. Sen Hagel has won over this Life Long Loyal Liberal Democrat- he is hands Down the Best Choice for VP. It is time to forget ‘Party colors’ and vote for Public Servants who recognize their responsibilty as such!

Some overall background:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9P15YZrnv0&feat ure=related

Here is more on Obama by Tarpley. One thing that Tarpley said that stuck with me was,“At least the Neocons only stick to attacking countries that can’t strike back at us with nukes. This Bryzinski fellow wants to go up against the Soviet Union.”
I don’t feel good about this Obama at all. I do know that we are going into a depression of some sort. So a larger war is in order by players of the great game. For some reason Obama wants to stir up trouble with Pakistan Pakistan happens to be an ally to China. Anyway please listen to the program in the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfip0k2Oit8

Is Obama more bloodyminded than McCain?
Please listen to the show in the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10U7loIy_js&feature =related

Troublesum..

This is really old.

“Please refrain from personal attacks on everyone who disagrees with you.”

So, why don’t we turn it around to reflect the reality. What you’re asking me to do, (with this very tired ass chorus of attacking me for disagreeing) is to suggest that for some reason, *I’M* not allowed to disagree here. If *I* disagree, or reveal the lack of substance to any of your subjective claims, then that’s a personal attack, based on your perverted logic.

Well, sorry, but that’s not what it is, and you’re not running anything, and I will continue to call you out on your rhetoric, just as I will on anybody else’s. That’s what ‘truthdiggers’ do.

So, don’t take it personally. Or, if you’re gonna take it personally, then step up to the plate, and put your money where your mouth is.

For instance…your latest project is to define Obama as a corporatist, and beholden to corporate interests. Now this is ludicrous on it’s face, for anybody who has bothered to familiarize themselves with even the barest of the basics of his history. But STILL, for those who may know nothing, (and you’re hoping to convince them of this) how likely is it that they’re gonna believe you, if you can’t provide any of the background for your claims?

Take your rhetoric that Obama has “ ‘let it be known’ in ‘countless ways’ that he’s ready to to do business for the good of corporate America.”

HOW has he ‘let it be known”? What are these ‘countless ways”? WHO knows it? (besides you)

Help us out with these connections Troublesum. Please, detail some ‘corporate ties to this 46 year old academic/public servant. Pick any spot you want to start with. You can go back to his childhood when he was raised by a single parent who oftentimes struggled to pay the bills. Or, you can go back to his college days, and investigate all of the loans that he’s just finished paying off on that. Or, you can start with his first employment, as a teacher. See any corporate ties there Troublesum? Or you can just go back to the days when he was hanging out in the barbershops/beauty salons,  and pool halls on the South Side of Chicago. (are you familiar with the South Side of Chicago Troublesum?) Or, if you just wanna blow off all of that regular stuff, (since it doesn’t quite fit with the ‘corporate image/) then you can move to those 8 years that he spent (again..this is public service) in the Illinois State Legislature. Maybe you can conjure up some corporate ties there.

But here’s the thing troublesum, UNLESS YOU CAN, then it pretty much means that you’re just talking shit, and the bottom line is that most folks can see through that.

Now that isn’t a ‘personal attack’. It’s an observation that most reasonably intelligent people would make, whether they decide to comment on it or not. And none of this has a damn thing to do with YOU (or anyone) not ‘agreeing’ with ME. It has to do with you backing up the shit that you talk. BECAUSE…I’d be more than happy to agree *or* disagree with YOU, if you’d just put something out there, besides stuff that you pick out of the air, or otherwise fabricate in your own mind.

So, there’s a plethora of stuff that you could give us to consider. You once claimed that he Obama doesn’t address the interests of the black population. So, how do you come to that conclusion? Can you site anything that would make us believe that?

You said that he must figure that Bush hasn’t committed any crimes. How did you decide that? Did he say that? Has he ever said that he was planning to maintain or increase the US troop levels in Iraq? How about the issue of those permanent bases? Ever heard him say that he wants those? I’m just curious about all of this troublesum, because I’ve heard him say the exact opposite. So now I’m wondering if I must be hearing things.

Can you help me out?

I say again: Jim Webb

Hillary & Obama,
Up in a tree…

No really, the only worst pick i could possibly think off is LIEberman and fortunately only McCain is stupid enough.

Not that i’d vote for a Repugnican or a Democrap.  You wanna see a ticket that reflects the values of Americans today, look elsewhere.  These candidates do not reflect the desires of the American people.  Hello???

Peace, single payer heath care, fair elections, pollution, education, 9/11 investigation, corporate media, corporate crimes, corporate welfare…

Ralph & Cynthia are on the correct side of these issues.

The best part of Cynthia McKinney is that one does not have to choose between female & black, best of both worlds. 

As opposed to, “not as bad as McCain”.

cyrena,
I didn’t say Obama needs their love and support; I said he needs their votes.  If you don’t agree, try looking at an electoral map.  Please refrain from personal attacks on everyone who disagrees with you.
Making a comment about Obama’s chances in the election says nothing about my integrity or anyone else’s.

I think Obama is smart enough to know that if he opts for Hillary as his VP, his life expectancy is shortened.

Allen G,

You fool yourself if you think I have energy to waste on ‘Hating Hillary’ or anybody else for that matter. I won’t try to speak for the others.

So no, I don’t ‘hate’ Hillary. I just use my reason, logic, and common sense to acknowledge that she is a danger to society, and she’s proven that to anyone paying attention.

Newsflash..Hillary Clinton enthusiastically put the full weight of her political support, (ie her Senate voice) behind the authorization to wage an illegal war against another sovereign nation state. As a result, the lives of millions of people have been destroyed, not to mention the nation that was attacked..Iraq. She’s also made it clear that she’s quite willing to do the same to yet another sovereign nation state. Iran.

So no. I don’t need to hate Hillary. I only need to exercise the same common sense that anyone else should exercise, and acknowledge that she is a danger. That’s hardly ‘bile’. It is what it is. I didn’t force those decisions on her. Presumably, she made them herself.

Anyone who fails to connect the dots there is…well, STUPID.

Troublesum, I don’t think you really get what integrity is. When you suggest that Obama needs all the votes he can get…at what cost? I’m sorry, I disagree, but then I have an idea of what integrity is about.

Not long ago, an assistant professor in my organization offered to write a letter of recommendation for me. I don’t know WHY he made the offer, because I didn’t ask him for it.

Now in my business, letters of recommendation carry a certain amount of weight, dependent of course on what one’s particular goals might be. However, not all letters of recommendation are created equally. In short, it DEPENDS ON WHO IS MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION! And why.

This particular professor was a gadfly pompous arrogant asshole, obviously far more impressed with himself than anybody else was. Otherwise, why would he even think that I’d want a letter of recommendation from him? The reality is that coming from him, it could have done me more harm than good.

That’s the same way I feel about your claim that Obama needs all the support he can get. He needs support from those who actually support him. Otherwise, he doesn’t..anymore than I needed that LOR from the arrogant professor.

A couple of people have mentioned Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm as a possible running mate… well (unfortunately) that can’t happen because she’s simply not eligible to be elected. She was born in Canada.

Otherwise, jackpine savage, you and the generally disgruntled like you, will get at least four more years of the same madness. So you may choose to, “Never vote for a Clinton”, but the baggage attached to that decision will be attaching your lips to the Regressive Ass that has been shitting on us these past eight years.

I don’t know if you were too young or just failed to notice, tomack, but the era of Clintonian Regressiveness shit on us for eight years prior to the current mess.  Maybe you didn’t know that warrantless wiretapping began in 1998, under Clinton…etc, etc, etc.

I never said i was going to vote for McCain…under any circumstance.  My first inclination is to never vote major party for President anyhow.  I’ve thought of giving Obama a chance because, well, what do we have to lose?

As far as i’m concerned, anyone who voted for Clinton (at least in 96) is as much to blame for the shit we’re sitting in as the people who voted for Bush.  I’ll wager that you’ve left your lip prints all over the cause of our situation, eh?

A vote for someone other than the Dem candidate is not a vote for McCain.  Leave the fear mongering to the right…lefties trying to pull it off just sound sad.

Conservative Yankee, i’d think twice about Granholm being worth it.  I’m living under her now…and while she was dealt a terrible hand, she’s played it like a fool.  She’s one of those politicians who’s beautiful from afar but far from beautiful.

geoffrey n lachner, June 18 at 8:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

“Obama needs military service experience.  Obama needs a southern white.  Obama needs someone who can give confidence to Americans that he is competent.  All point to Wesley Clark, Vietnam vet, ex-4 star etc.  First in class at West Point, almost too good to be true. From Arkansas.”

~~~

I’m inclined to agree with this. Wesley Clark is an experienced leader who is capable of holding his own under criticism. At the same time able to work with a strong leader without rumbling for a one-up-man-ship opportunity. For those who don’t get it, he could be compared to Collen Powell, without the political baggage. Only unlike Powell, Clark would never agree to lie to the UN because his master told him so. Clark has the kind of self-respect and integrity that would challenge a policy, or order that was contrived on lies. But then I’m prejudiced. I happen to really like the guy.

Regardless, the search for VP has to be a search for the best working companion for a man who tells us he means to get some work done. While it’s fun to speculate and put in our two cents worth, the VP really shouldn’t be selected based on gender, color, or cute. Rather on a well established history of working well with people, understanding constitutional and military and international law. Being a life-long democrat, and a lifelong leader free of the entanglements of a history of politics. But with a history of working well with those who do. And working well with those in the international arena. Hmmm, brings me back to Clark.

Beware of the so-called “security moms” who are switching from Hillary to McCain.

“Security mom” is often a delicate media verbal evasion for something else, as was clear from an NPR report I heard while driving yesterday.

They are often “women who are sort of liberal on social and economic issues, but who care much more about Israel than anything else — including US security, the economic well-being of US citizens, and their so-called liberal values — and so now they will support McCain because he’s the only certified pro-Israel, pro-war fanatic left in the race.”

This NPR reporter went to the supposedly key “security mom” state of New Jersey, to get a feel for the voice of the people. She found a gathering of Democratic women, all former Clinton supporters, and asked if any were switching to McCain. She found that almost all were happily planning to vote for Obama, but she did find an exception, a Ms. Schwartz. Asked why she now supports McCain, she said, “Israel’s security is very important to me, and since the candidates are equally good on US security, I want the one who’s better for Israel.”

Of course, all three of the candidates are NOT equally good for US security, which Ms. Schwartz must know but probably wouldn’t dare admit even to herself.

The Bush/McCain agenda of continued violent regime change in the Middle East, through massive wars and interminable occupations - an agenda which Hillary promised to continue and has consistently voted to support - is very BAD for US security. It’s a certain recipe for ever more anti-US terrorism, and very possibly a national US economic collapse.

And even though all three candidates groveled their hearts out at the AIPAC convention, Ms. Schwartz is STILL not quite sure he loves Israel QUITE enough, or hates Arabs QUITE enough, for her to feel “secure”.

The “security moms” are a big part of what has gone terribly wrong with the Democratic party, as it tries to hang on to its traditional Jewish constituency and their disproportionate financial contributions, while that constituency moves ever farther to the right on foreign policy, placing Israel’s expansionist, hegemonist interests ever more clearly above legitimate US interests. This right wing Israel policy slant is especially evident when it comes to the big donors and the people who run the major Jewish organizations.

I’m afraid that Clinton’s grasping ego would be a danger, in essence, Cheny in a dress!

Watch clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l121sDC4Q5s

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope