Going to Back Barack

[yeahwho]

In the multitude of choices for the future President of the United States, I've decided Barack Obama is the clearest choice for myself as our next President.

I have always been a huge supporter and vocal proponent of Kucinich, but it's the reality of the matter that his true democratic ways are never going to fly with the current populist of the USofA. So as much as it is true I'm compromising my own political beliefs, it is also important to think about what sort of future is obtainable to the Country as a whole.


some quick reasons for my choice.

10. this NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?em&ex=1198126800&en=ac4444e0692ba0ea&ei=5087%0A) Op/Ed helped

9. he opposed the Iraq War from the outset.

8.Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation.

7. I bet his vice presidential choice is better than Cheney.

6.Oprah

5."Agent of Change" has a nice ring to it.

4. I like his health care ideas and responses,
it's time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair.

3. He is instrumental on watching how our taxes are spent, applauding transparency in government spending and actions. That is something completely different from the past 3 administrations.

2. Dude is a great speaker (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/barack_obama.html), we are in desperate need of great speaking skills.

1. The thought of "Bush., Clinton, Clinton, Bush., Bush., Clinton" is so very depressing.

[King PSYZ]

I'll be pulling the handle right along side of ya.

Barack gives me a hope for a better America, because I am ashamed of what has transpired since 2000 here.

[drizl]

barack isnt going to do shit. besides hilary would get the vote before he would.

[drizl]

just my humble opinion. he feels like another suck-dick senator who is trying to climb the ladder. council on foreign relations, congrats. ron paul is the only hope in this election for the real change america needs. out of iraq? great. he's even said that it would be a slow process that would take years. so, immediate pullout isnt really what he means. we all know that as long as there are troops in the middle east, there will be more aggression towards the us, and more bullshit american foreign policy.

ronnie is for an end to the us militarism plaguing the world, hes the only one that isnt afraid to speak the truth about our history, our foreign policy, our health care system, the federal reserve, etc... the man's protested his own pension!

please reconsider.

[King PSYZ]

no thanks

[fucktopgirl]

1. The thought of "Bush., Clinton, Clinton, Bush., Bush., Clinton" is so very depressing.

hehe

That about the only good reason you got to vote for him, because other then that, it will not change a damn thing!!!!!!

[yeahwho]

out of iraq? great. he's even said that it would be a slow process that would take years. so, immediate pullout isnt really what he means.


Wrong.

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq. LINK (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/)

[yeahwho]

ronnie is for an end to the us militarism plaguing the world, hes the only one that isnt afraid to speak the truth about our history, our foreign policy, our health care system, the federal reserve, etc... the man's protested his own pension!

please reconsider.

Give us all a written policy by Ron Paul of his plan for Iraq troop withdrawals and dealing with the damage done from US intervention and consequent war? Or would that be meddling?

[abcdefz]

I'm voting for him.

First, I actually like him as a candidate; second, it's almost like voting against Clinton, which gives me great satisfaction. (y)

[wrongwayandugg]

yeah. i'm thinking about voting for obama. his rhetoric is convincing and i grew up with oprah on the telly (y)

[drizl]

i dont trust him at all. he's too young and moved up too fast. i think he is also somewhat cocky. when he talks i get the feeling its all just rhetoric with no balls behind it. and as a member of the council on foreign relations, he is well into maintaining american foreign policy, which is broken and is the reason why the majority of the rest of the world does not like the US. i get the feeling he will only perpetuate the bullshit, make a few minor changes, stay the course for the war on terror, keep our military bases in iraq (which will not please the iraqi people) and continue the legacy of taking money from big business to pull through bullshit bills rewarding oil companies, health care companies, defense contractors, etc... he wont make, what i feel, are the necessary changes, he wont even touch the topics that ron brings up because he stands for big change, and obama grew up in the system, plays by the systems rules, and wishes to move forward in the system. he might have a big dick because he's black, but he has no balls.

[saz]

if i were american i'd be behind edwards 100%. kucinich is practically perfect and a dream come true, but unfortunately he gets zero coverage and attention in the states.

edwards is touting economic populism and populist ideals. he has taken on huge corporations on behalf of the little guy and won numerous times. edwards is one of the very few championing the poor, impoverished, defenceless and marginalized. he also recognizes that we are facing a global crisis with climate change, and that immediate, drastic action is required, ie 'there's more to be patriotic about than war'.

obama is a nice guy and seems very genuine, i like him a lot, he's definitely not a dlc elitist or washington beltway insider. however he's been biting edwards ideas here and there, and supports the peru free trade agreement which will likely lead to more outsourcing of jobs.

p.s. ron paul is a nut job and a corporate mouthpiece. while he's spot on in regards to u.s. foreign policy, he's on the record defending david koresh and the branch davidians, he believes that kofi annan and the united nations are part of a socialist plot to take over the world, he regularly bashes universal health care, and wants to privatize the department of education. so, not only should americans be screwed out of their right to proper health care (plus being charged up the ass, and even though they might have insurance they might be denied emergency care or specific operations), but they should also have to fork over money so their kids can go to school, and therefore only those who can afford to send their kids to school will be able to do so.

[drizl]

if i were american i'd be behind edwards 100%. kucinich is practically perfect and a dream come true, but unfortunately he gets zero coverage and attention in the states.

edwards is touting economic populism and populist ideals. he has taken on huge corporations on behalf of the little guy and won numerous times. edwards is one of the very few championing the poor, impoverished, defenceless and marginalized. he also recognizes that we are facing a global crisis with climate change, and that immediate, drastic action is required, ie 'there's more to be patriotic about than war'.

obama is a nice guy and seems very genuine, i like him a lot, he's definitely not a dlc elitist or washington beltway insider. however he's been biting edwards ideas here and there, and supports the peru free trade agreement which will likely lead to more outsourcing of jobs.

p.s. ron paul is a nut job and a corporate mouthpiece. while he's spot on in regards to u.s. foreign policy, he's on the record defending david koresh and the branch davidians, he believes that kofi annan and the united nations are part of a socialist plot to take over the world, he regularly bashes universal health care, and wants to privatize the department of education. so, not only should americans be screwed out of their right to proper health care (plus being charged up the ass, and even though they might have insurance they might be denied emergency care or specific operations), but they should also have to fork over money so their kids can go to school, and therefore only those who can afford to send their kids to school will be able to do so.


obviously you are not from the US.
what corporation is benefitting from what ron paul has to say? blackwater, kaiser permanente, chevron....how have they benefitted from ron pauls views? last i checked, he supports a healthcare system that is affordable to everyone while not being socialized, the way it was before nixon got kaiser permanente in the white house. back then, our healthcare system was top notch, affordable and didnt financially destroy people. (i was at a hosipital the other night, 1,500$ per night for a room!!! not including patient fees and doctor costs! just the room!)
as per blackwater, he wants to end america's bullshit foreign policy, how does that help defense contractors like blackwater?

corporate media obviously favors giuliani, romney, clinton and barack. they dont give paul the time of day when it comes to reporting.

heres a quote regarding how ron paul feels about big oil subsidies:
"I don't like subsidizing oil companies. They've been doing that for years. We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming -- by subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed. And that's why we're in the Middle East, to protect oil interests."


show me which corporations are benefitting from ron paul, because it certainly arent any that are benefitting right now.

[drizl]

its okay to have an opinion, but at least have some substance behind it

[checkyourprez]

i really like my man bill. but hill just comes off as such a fake bitch, with the big corps in her pockets.


obama actually sounds like he can do something for the good. i mean theres only up to go from here.

[saz]

obviously you are not from the US.
what corporation is benefitting from what ron paul has to say?

the entire pharmaceutical industry, by keeping health care in their hands.


blackwater, kaiser permanente, chevron....how have they benefitted from ron pauls views?

i wasn't talking about blackwater. again, by keeping health care private, and not advocating universal coverage, these private corporations - such as kaiser permanente - will continue to reap massive profits, while millions go without coverage, or are denied coverage.


last i checked, he supports a healthcare system that is affordable to everyone while not being socialized, the way it was before nixon got kaiser permanente in the white house.

oh right, the "socialized" medicine boogeyman card. like universal health care has been such a disaster in canada, england, france, germany, sweden etc. right, a private health care system that is affordable for everyone. sure. and the entire pharmaceutical industry will surely get behind that concept.


back then, our healthcare system was top notch, affordable and didnt financially destroy people.

how do you know?


(i was at a hosipital the other night, 1,500$ per night for a room!!! not including patient fees and doctor costs! just the room!)
as per blackwater, he wants to end america's bullshit foreign policy, how does that help defense contractors like blackwater?

i never accused paul of being in bed with private defence contractors.


corporate media obviously favors giuliani, romney, clinton and barack. they dont give paul the time of day when it comes to reporting.

it's also because paul has spoken to and addressed white supremicist and right-wing extremist organizations, who are supporting him. meanwhile the corporate media isn't exactly crazy about obama. hillary? absolutely. obama? no. they're having a field day falsely trying to label him as a muslim, and having once attended a muslim school.


heres a quote regarding how ron paul feels about big oil subsidies:
"I don't like subsidizing oil companies. They've been doing that for years. We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming -- by subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed. And that's why we're in the Middle East, to protect oil interests."

cool.


show me which corporations are benefitting from ron paul, because it certainly arent any that are benefitting right now.

again, the pharmaceutical industry will continue to reap massive profits under the private system that paul supports.

its okay to have an opinion, but at least have some substance behind it

look who's talking.

barack isnt going to do shit.

and just how do you know?

just my humble opinion. he feels like another suck-dick senator who is trying to climb the ladder.

"he feels". feels. again, you don't know. you're just going on a baseless assumption.


council on foreign relations, congrats.

whoa, the council on foreign relations. angelina jolie is also a member of the council on foreign relations.


ron paul is the only hope in this election for the real change america needs.

right. private health care, and a privatized education system and school vouchers. education only for the rich, or those who can afford it.


out of iraq? great. he's even said that it would be a slow process that would take years. so, immediate pullout isnt really what he means. we all know that as long as there are troops in the middle east, there will be more aggression towards the us, and more bullshit american foreign policy.

i actually agree with that.


ronnie is for an end to the us militarism plaguing the world,

so are edwards, kucinich, and gravel (but too bad he dropped out).


hes the only one that isnt afraid to speak the truth about our history, our foreign policy, our health care system,

again, he supports the privatized system.


please reconsider.

you know, i'm sure there might be some out there who actually might do so and reconsider. however, you're not going to win anyone over with such patronizing remarks as:

its okay to have an opinion, but at least have some substance behind it

[drizl]

obviously as long as there are medicines, there will be a pharmeceutical industry. he doesnt advocate the industry, but the people, wanting for them fair health care.

i know that our healthcare system used to be a lot better, because it has gotten a lot worse. we led the industrial revolution and have been on top of technology and industry ever since. healthcare was affordable. we had top doctors. the best universities. etc...


i dont really know what else to refute, nothing else stands out as worthwhile. really picking me to peices huh? something to think about....

a true patriotic candidate would be outraged at almost every route of the american political system beacuse corruption has manifested at every corner, and actually puts congress folk and presidents into office. anyone who isnt as outraged and passionate to change things as ron paul doesnt have my trust. he has the balls to do something about it too. he's not worried about "political suicide" or lack of media respect. he's focused on changing america for the better, not simply taking his turn as next in line.

paul is the best choice, i repeat paul is the best choice. please reconsider.

[drizl]

are you suggesting that barackjolina on the council on foreign relations is a good thing? or that the council is not that big of a deal? they are used to decide/dictate US foreign policy, its not just a clever name. that is why barack being in on it is a big deal. because his foreign policy will not be all that different from that of the council on foreign relations, because he is a member. and as you agree, our foreign policy is not something to be proud of.
angelina is used by the council on foreign relations because she has influence over ignorant media fanatics.
...not really something for barack to be proud of.

[yeahwho]

paul is the best choice, i repeat paul is the best choice. please reconsider.

I do not know how you have come to this conclusion, honestly. Do us all a favor here and just like I asked before,

Give us all a written policy by Ron Paul of his plan for Iraq troop withdrawals and dealing with the damage done from US intervention and consequent war? Or would that be meddling?


Ron Paul has an ideology and record of voting NO on most every bill that has come across his plate as United States Congressman. Ron Paul is an interesting politician in his views, but having a plan of action that entails US policy is what is needed. Not "I'm against it", vote for me. Propose what he is going to do to solve the Middle East crisis.

[DroppinScience]

Barack Obama is definitely guilty of some pandering (his "I'd send troops to Pakistan" comment was horribly misguided, especially when you consider what he's supposed to represent and what sort of people see in him when they support him), but on the whole, if he actually got the nomination and the presidency, you can bet he'll take things in the right direction. It wouldn't be perfect (Kucinich is indeed perfect in terms of views, and I do like Edwards' comments on the poor and helping them), but it'd be a very important symbolic victory and give confidence for the U.S. to do the right thing (both at home and abroad).

It would mean an administration that would care about civil rights, that would be a lot less likely to wage illegal wars, and would (hopefully) mark a turn away from Clinton-esque centrism for the Democratic party.

At least one would hope.

[drizl]

I do not know how you have come to this conclusion, honestly. Do us all a favor here and just like I asked before,

Give us all a written policy by Ron Paul of his plan for Iraq troop withdrawals and dealing with the damage done from US intervention and consequent war? Or would that be meddling?


Ron Paul has an ideology and record of voting NO on most every bill that has come across his plate as United States Congressman. Ron Paul is an interesting politician in his views, but having a plan of action that entails US policy is what is needed. Not "I'm against it", vote for me. Propose what he is going to do to solve the Middle East crisis.

he believes fervently in the constitution as law and so votes down things like the patriot act, homeland security act, homegrown terrorism act, etc... which impinge on our freedoms and rights as american citizens.

thats good to vote no to those bills.

i dont know if i have heard his iraq exit strategy. im pretty sure it would be leave asap, and help iraq rebuild. its kind of a yes or no question, and i believe he would say yes, get out of iraq. im skeptical of anything hillary says about iraq because she is already in too deep and would probably help her friends and herself make money off the war like most others, especially the other republican candidates would do. she is a very powerful woman, and has been in the game (and played with the big boys) long and high enough to be trusted in my opinion. barack as a member of council on foreign relations, a think tank, media mongering, group of policy makers who have done nothing to stop dubya, the war, etc... cant be trusted either. ron pauls voting record of "no's" proves he is more trustworthy than the other condidates in my opinion.

[QueenAdrock]

we led the industrial revolution and have been on top of technology and industry ever since.

Actually, it started in Europe and spread to the States. James Watt was a Scottish inventor and helped create one of the pivotal instruments of the revolution - the steam engine - which was invented and patented in England. The lead chamber process, glass making, machine building, all the major things came out of Europe...Europe had a much larger role to play than America did. Not that it matters in this context, it's just that seeing someone say "America led the industrial revolution" bothers the European historian inside of me.

Anyways, as of now, I'm still unsure of who to vote for, but I'm leaning towards Edwards and Richardson. We'll see though, the primaries are still *fairly* far away....

[Documad]

^^ Your home state must have a primary then. Can you vote in the primaries by mail? You can't for caucuses, but it won't matter -- it will all be over long before my state caucuses happen.

I'm going to vote for whoever the democratic candidate is in the general election and even then I doubt my vote will matter -- my state always goes for the democrat.

I don't much like Obama, but then I don't like any of them. I thought Richardson had potential before I started reading about him. Of the somewhat viable candidates, I honestly like Hillary best but that's because I figure that I already know the worst about her. With the others, the more you dig, the more icky stuff you find out. Of the non-viable candidates, I kind of like Biden because he's willing to say truthful non-political stuff. But the only reason he can do that is because he's running for secretary of state instead of president. And he's got loads of skeletons in his closet too.

I've been giving my money to local candidates. The money being spent on the national election makes me sick to my stomach.

[abcdefz]

From CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/20/iowa.poll/index.html)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Just two weeks until the Iowa caucuses, the Democratic presidential candidates appear to be in a dead heat in
the Hawkeye State, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll.

John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are virtually tied for the Democrats' top spot in Iowa.


Thirty percent of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers support Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York as the nominee, with Sen. Barack Obama
of Illinois at 28 percent and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at 26 percent, according to the poll, released Thursday morning.

With the poll's sampling error at plus or minus 4 percentage points, it's a virtual tie for the top spot in Iowa, the first state to vote in
the race for the White House.

[QueenAdrock]

^^ Your home state must have a primary then. Can you vote in the primaries by mail? You can't for caucuses, but it won't matter -- it will all be over long before my state caucuses happen.

Yup...I believe I'm voting in Maryland for the primaries (which occurs on Super Tuesday) but the tricky thing is, I'm going to be registering to vote in North Carolina since that's where my primary residence in the US is now. And I'm changing that all over in the next week or so (hopefully) so uh, where the heck do I vote? MD has already sent me something in the mail, so I feel like I should stick with that, but if my primary residence isn't there anymore then maybe I shouldn't...but will NC be able to get my absentee ballot out in time then? I'm pretty sure I needed to request it for the primaries by November. :-/

Maybe I'll just stick with MD for this round and then after the primaries, vote in NC.

[jabumbo]

i would wait until after the primaries to change your voter registration.



as far as my choices go, i really have no idea who i am going to vote for

[Documad]

QA: You shouldn't vote in a state that you can't honestly call your state of residence. I know it seems like a small thing but it's a crime and it's not worth the risk. You never know. You might run for office someday and you don't want it on your record. Go ahead and register in the state that you can honestly call your place of residence so that you're ready for the general election.

[QueenAdrock]

Well that's the tough part. My parents live in North Carolina, so when I come home, it's to see them, and all of my U.S. correspondances, letters, and records have been forwarded to their address. But I grew up in the state of Maryland and it's the only state I've ever lived in in the US. So...technically both are my residency. If you asked which I felt was MORE my residency, that would be Maryland...but since I don't live there, don't have an address there anymore, don't have an address I CAN use there...therefore my residency is reverted to where my closest relatives live, right? I dunno. I mean, I'm sure I'm not the first overseas voter who had their parents move to another state, right?

Anyone? Bueller? :(

[Documad]

The only thing I know for sure is that you can only have one legal residence/domicile in the US at a time. It's commonly thought to be the place that you intend to return to permanently. It's not really related to where your parents live if you don't actually live with them.

My brother lived overseas for several years. During that time he had no residence in the US. As I recall, he only got to vote for the US president in the general election. He wasn't allowed to vote in any state races, even though before and after he moved to London he lived in the same state and always intended to return to it. That was a long time ago though.

[drizl]

wow, the more i read on council on foreign relations, the more i realize i would never vote for anyone who is a member of its elite. :rolleyes:

(not sure if all of these folk are still in the run, but as of july 07 this was the list of current candidates who are members of the council on foreign relations)
Fred Thompson
Michael Bloomberg
Rudy Giuliani
John McCainMitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson



not bad! looks like american foreign policy and neo colonialism have a pretty good shot at maintaning stature in the '08 election! i am highly skeptical of any of them promising troops out anytime soon. that is not the direction of american foreign policy within the council on foreign relations. if you are in the council, you are only that much more of a sell-out suck-dick elitist who believes in the america that we have today, (not in the constitution). if they did care, they wouldnt be wasting their time in the council on foreign relations. the council is another tool used by elitist to think up new ways to dominate the world and perpetuate the shit. stay away

[drizl]

video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM)

[drizl]

link: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sovereignty_and_globalisation.html

from richard haass, president of the CFR: article on soveriengty and globalisation, the platform for the CFR's vision for a one-world government, north american union etc...

"Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary."


"The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy."

"Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function."


so the question becomes, are you in favor of relinquishing more freedoms towards the creation of an american union and then a one world government? or
are you in favor of the constitution, the ideals of america, freedom and soveriegnty?


and also, what right do these people have to go behind our backs and dictate the direction our country has to head????

fuck the CFR.

[Bob]

The only thing I know for sure is that you can only have one legal residence/domicile in the US at a time. It's commonly thought to be the place that you intend to return to permanently.

i think i've heard that phrase a couple times in law school at this point so i'll quote it, yeah. your domicile is the place that you intend to return to/live in permanently. i dunno how it works for voting purposes, but for civil procedure and bankruptcy purposes, that's how it works i think.

[QueenAdrock]

Well I said that if I returned to the US, I'd want to live in Richmond, VA. I've never lived there, none of my friends or family are in VA, but it's probably where I'd want to be. I'm not returning to Maryland, and I don't like NC enough to move here either. I can't register to vote in VA though, because I have no identification linking me to that area.

As of this point, I don't want to return. I've got great friends, great health care, pay much less for housing and utilities and such, I love it in Canada. But since I'm a US citizen, I still maintain the right to vote in the elections, which is important to me. So uh, I maintain that I still don't have an answer to where I am a 'resident.' But NC said I could register to vote there, so I guess I'll do that.

[yeahwho]

As of this point, I don't want to return. I've got great friends, great health care, pay much less for housing and utilities and such, I love it in Canada. But since I'm a US citizen, I still maintain the right to vote in the elections, which is important to me. So uh, I maintain that I still don't have an answer to where I am a 'resident.' But NC said I could register to vote there, so I guess I'll do that.

Well since I started this little thread, I say you'll enjoy the USA and a whole slew of great people if your willing to get politically charged up over the "Agent of Change". I am pretty much sold on Obama for multiple reasons, but probably the biggest reason is he genuinely is brilliant. Brilliant and he also has some real integrity. I'm not bashing the other dems (yet) but Obama appears to me as extremely electable against any of the republicans running today.

[QueenAdrock]

Funny enough, I heard recently that Edwards was the only candidate who beat all other Republicans when he went head-to-head with them in individual national polls. So apparently, if given the choice of Edwards or any of the Republican candidates, the nation goes with Edwards - but for some reason, he's still trailing behind Clinton and Obama, who don't poll as well against their counterparts.

I'll go with whoever the Dems put up regardless, but I think I'm leaning towards Richardson for the primaries. I like Obama, but I think Richardson would do the best job if elected. He's just so experienced and knowledgable with international diplomacy and energy and everything else he did first-hand in the Clinton administration. Plus my old boss is practically best friends with the guy, so he'd kill me if I didn't vote for him. :p

[yeahwho]

Funny enough, I heard recently that Edwards was the only candidate who beat all other Republicans when he went head-to-head with them in individual national polls. So apparently, if given the choice of Edwards or any of the Republican candidates, the nation goes with Edwards - but for some reason, he's still trailing behind Clinton and Obama, who don't poll as well against their counterparts.

I'll go with whoever the Dems put up regardless, but I think I'm leaning towards Richardson for the primaries. I like Obama, but I think Richardson would do the best job if elected. He's just so experienced and knowledgable with international diplomacy and energy and everything else he did first-hand in the Clinton administration. Plus my old boss is practically best friends with the guy, so he'd kill me if I didn't vote for him. :p

Just sayin' ya know. Richardson is cool. Maybe he'll get some sort of groundswell going. I'm lazy and have decided to expedite my energy into who I believe has the best odds of stopping a Clinton/Bush regime, "Agent of Change" is brilliant politics, I do know good politics when I see them, Obama is fucking amazing.

Edwards trial lawyer persona will be attacked with vigor, I like all those guys, I actually have always been a proponent of Kucnich, but the guy has been ignored and dorktified to almost a nonentity.

It's so very nice to talk about something besides the current buffoon.

[QueenAdrock]

I know it's not gonna be Richardson for the win, but I think if he gets enough support during the primaries he may signal to the major players that he'd be a good running mate. If he got VP, he could definitely take over after the President's term is up. I don't see an Obama/Hillary ticket, or vice versa...I think they'd pick someone else who would complement them yet not overshadow them. An Obama/Richardson ticket may be too dangerously ethnic for rural Americans though. ;)

I've got another month to decide for sure.

[saz]

obviously as long as there are medicines, there will be a pharmeceutical industry. he doesnt advocate the industry, but the people, wanting for them fair health care.

paul advocates a private system, which is completely controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. any other system in the western world is in the hands of the government - goverments that doesn't answer to shareholders, nor is the number one priority of said governments to maintain or maximize profits, because with universal, public systems, the number one priority is to help and serve those who require medical attention.


i know that our healthcare system used to be a lot better, because it has gotten a lot worse.

convincing stuff.


we led the industrial revolution

you mean great britain did, over a few hundred years ago.


i dont really know what else to refute, nothing else stands out as worthwhile.


ditto your zero credibility cfr boogeyman links.


really picking me to peices huh? something to think about....

so is ron paul's defence of david koresh and the branch davidians.

[drizl]

is there a pharmeceutical company that makes the medicine for the universal healthcare system?
and paul backs a more fair system for healthcare because he wants it to be more affordable, with more options.

watch sicko to see how fucked up our healthcare system is now

great britain may have invented the steam engine. america led the industrial revolution by assembly line manufacturing, the invention of the airplane, the car etc... we didnt start it, you can argue that great britain didnt start it either. but since the industrial revolution began, we have led the way in production and in technology development. i think its fair to say we led the industrial revolution.

do you remember waco? it was a key moment in the destruction of american freedom. yeah, the guy was a nutjob fucking thirteen year olds and holding children as prisoners. but the way the government handled it caused the entire situation to literally blow up, and in the process, the government showed that it could do whatever it wanted. remember the militia men in montana? same story. the government ignoring law and taking advantage of a situation to step it up, go beyond boundaries and accustom people to the use of force. im sure you are going to argue that i support david koresh now too. of course, i do not.

[yeahwho]

Dude has hustle.....

Obama to Iowans: Pick me at least as 2nd choice (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN3155625420071231)


"Even if you're not caucusing for me, go to caucus," Obama told several hundred people in a church's parish hall in this town south of Des Moines.

"Make me your second choice, although you are wiser making me your first," he said to laughter and applause.

[ericg]

kinda wanted to root for him at first.. but found he's too tied up in common (bad) politics (as usual) with a tendency to play the outfield entirely too much (to get the democratic majority's attention who haven't really comprehended anything but present propaganda) with present face values (subjective devastations). he's a 'front liner' - and though he plays the cover, he's not really prepared or ready to do what's really due... his indictment skills aren't up to par either. i don't trust him all considered. not to mention that his sponsor's don't add up - he's a member/ puppet for the council on foriegn relations only there to 'round things out'. pelosi, clinton and obama advocate more nuclear plants??? and what happened with the va hostpital under his charge again??!!! most of the democratic candidates are false positives and avoid entirely too much. not to mention the obama vs hillary bullshit was obviously played/ designed as a pathetic publicity attempt to get ahead with people who don't know any better than the superficial hype - what our government/ society has been about for too long.
sorry charlie.

[yeahwho]

I wholeheartedly agree, who wouldn't? It's like they say, entertainers all of them. (http://ronpaulftw.ytmnd.com/)

[yeahwho]

"I'M ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I'm asking you to believe in yours. ...

Another reason I'm going to back Barack is his ability to stay democratic.
Senator Obama thanked Congressman Dennis Kucinich for encouraging his supporters to caucus for Obama as their second choice in the Iowa caucuses. Obama noted that he and Kucinich both opposed the war in Iraq before it started and are committed to reclaiming the American Dream on behalf of families across the country.

I have a lot of respect for Congressman Kucinich, and I’m honored that he has done this because we both believe deeply in the need for fundamental change,” said Senator Obama. “He and I have been fighting for a number of the same priorities -- including an end to the war in Iraq that we both opposed from the start, reforming Washington and creating a better life for America's working families. I encourage all Iowans to take part in the caucuses this Thursday – not because it will be good for any one candidate, but because it will be good for our party and the future of our country.

Below is the full text of the statement that Kucinich released this afternoon:

Kucinich Urges Supporters to Back Obama On Second Iowa Ballot

DES MOINES, IA -- Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday, and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Senator Barack Obama. "This is obviously an 'Iowa-only' recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.

I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.

Besides Obama is extremely eloquent in his delivery, which shows me he is a thinking compassionate human.

[saz]

strange that kucinich did that, considering that in '04 he asked his supporters to back edwards as their second choice.


Nader throws support to Edwards

MUSCATINE, Iowa — Ralph Nader unleashed on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday — criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business — and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.

In an eleventh hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" the former North Carolina senator by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected.

Nader specifically accused Clinton of failing to challenge military spending because "she is a woman who doesn't want to be labeled as soft on defense, and she doesn't want to be shown as taking on big business."

As Clinton campaigned through a snowstorm in southeast Iowa, pledging to "bring about the changes we need," Nader accused the Democratic senator from New York of using empty rhetoric.

"[Clinton] has not led the way against the avalanche of military contracting, corporate crime, fraud and abuse," he said. "We want to inform the people of Iowa about Hillary Clinton because all the focus is on, do they have the experience and do they have the personal charisma, and can they cross the aisle" Nader said.

"The issue is corporate power and who controls our political system and it's not who has experience for six years or two years," he said, alluding to an ongoing debate over experience between Clinton and freshman Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

"She has experience in the Senate, and what that experience has meant is going soft on cracking down on corporate crime, fraud, and abuse, soft on cutting tens of millions in corporate subsidies," he continued.

The Clinton campaign declined to comment on Nader's criticism.

Nader, a four-time presidential candidate, called Edwards a Democratic "glimmer of hope." He has long criticized Democrats as indistinguishable from Republicans, chiding both parties as slaves to corporate financing and interests.

It was Nader who famously — or infamously to many Democrats — siphoned off enough liberal votes from Al Gore in 2000 to hand New Hampshire and Florida, and as a result, the presidency, to George W. Bush. Since 2004, however, Nader has been increasingly controversial within the political left. He was booed at a national conference of progressives earlier this year.

But he remains a popular figure among some liberals. Activists are particularly influential in the Iowa caucuses, if only because participation asks hours of voters' time. Only a small portion of Iowa Democrats caucused in 2004.

Clinton is currently locked in a heated three-way race with Obama and Edwards in Iowa, the first contest of the presidential primaries.

On Monday, Nader also issued a public statement criticizing Clinton as a "corporate Democrat," echoing the exact words Edwards uses to challenge Clinton. Nader said he has watched Edwards from afar and sees his more pugilistic brand of populism as an encouraging sign.

"It's the only time I've heard a Democrat talk that way in a long time," Nader said, acknowledging what was, for him, a rare moment of praise for a Democratic leader.

"Iowa should decide which candidate stands for us," he added. "Edwards is at least highlighting day after day that the issue is who controls our country: big business or the people?"


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7647.html




michael moore on clinton, obama, and edwards

clinton

"The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed."

"And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence.""

"Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?"

"I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration."

obama

"Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?"

edwards

"It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=220

[yeahwho]

Sounds as if Nader and Moore are thinking Edwards will be their choice. It's amazing how Kucinich cannot even get into the fray, especially with Nader. I like Edwards, I even like Clinton, the problem I'm seeing with Clinton is this, she is going to lose. She has been vilified on talk radio to millions of listeners for 18 years. Edwards is a great guy, but he is a trial lawyer....trial lawyers will be made into the real problem with America, not corporations. That is my belief. Just like Ron Paul, Kucinich has been minimized to 0 with the media.

Nader and Moore both are of guilty for fucking up the 2000 vote. Two of the main proponents of a movement (Nader's Green Party run)that damaged Al Gore's run and changed the dynamic the USA's course on earth. They both kinda make me sick. That 2.7% of the Popular Vote they dragged away made the difference in our lives.

It's like they're republican operatives.

[saz]

the problem with clinton is that she is essentially a corporate mouthpiece (cozying up with the pharmaceutical industry), and seems more like a republican than a democrat. she also comes across as too scripted, rigid, who again, panders to the backroom lobbyists.

as a trial lawyer, edwards took on many corporations on behalf of the little guy and won multiple million dollar settlements for injured workers or those treated unjustly. that only serves his anti-corporate lobbyist, populist message.

blaming ralph nader and michael moore for the 2000 election debacle is absurd. in florida nader received approximately 93,000 votes from a combination of democrats, republicans, and independents. and approximately 300,000 registered democrats voted for bush. plus, the gore of 2000 couldn't even win his home state of tennessee. was that nader's fault too? plus, if the geniuses in gore's camp had a state-wide recount instead of a few select recounts in a few counties, gore would have won florida. had the supreme court not stopped the recount, again, gore would have won anyway. nader really had no impact on the outcome, despite how convenient it is to blame him. the mere fact that nader has been running for president addresses a colossal problem with the democratic party: that it's become a party of corporate lobbyist interests, that it's willing to outsource jobs, to wield to republican bullying, and abandon it's blue collar, populist, average working family roots. nader is loyal to average families, at least much more so than democrats like clinton or lieberman. if the democratic party cannot address and champion the progressive issues and message championed by nader, kucinich, and now edwards, than the party is in serious trouble.

[ericg]

kucinich is only turning the tables against hitlery. to have to name barack and edwards is extremely unfortunate - especially after edwards and hitlery plotted against him, on an open mic no less. why he's not going with gravel is disappointing. the odds/ 'demographic' would probably counter his show just a little too much - which, again, is disappointing on his part.

[yeahwho]

blaming ralph nader and michael moore for the 2000 election debacle is absurd. in florida nader received approximately 93,000 votes from a combination of democrats, republicans, and independents. and approximately 300,000 registered democrats voted for bush. plus, the gore of 2000 couldn't even win his home state of tennessee. was that nader's fault too? plus, if the geniuses in gore's camp had a state-wide recount instead of a few select recounts in a few counties, gore would have won florida. had the supreme court not stopped the recount, again, gore would have won anyway. nader really had no impact on the outcome, despite how convenient it is to blame him. the mere fact that nader has been running for president addresses a colossal problem with the democratic party: that it's become a party of corporate lobbyist interests, that it's willing to outsource jobs, to wield to republican bullying, and abandon it's blue collar, populist, average working family roots. nader is loyal to average families, at least much more so than democrats like clinton or lieberman. if the democratic party cannot address and champion the progressive issues and message championed by nader, kucinich, and now edwards, than the party is in serious trouble.

The democratic party is in trouble. Edwards is fine, but every republican I know on a personal level will immediately tell me, "He's a trial lawyer, Trial lawyers have ruined this country" , but I'm keeping an open mind (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html).

I am going with Obama for one simple reason, he is the most electable candidate the democrats have. He will not be out campaigned by any of the republican candidates. He is a political machine and most of his opponents know he isn't losing momentum. This is big that he is very savvy on the campaign road because unlike Gore he will influence the Moore's and Nader's of the world (like he has me) that the smart money is on Obama.

Nader is to blame, so is Michael, they took votes away mistakingly thinking Gore had it wrapped up, just my opinion and a few million others.

[ericg]

and i don't know what the fuck nader is thinking. it seems as though he's adhering to the superficial masses/ media promulgated demographic.
the 'trend'/ position he's going on looks to be in oddly evening shit out a little too much. what is he the eternal facts man sore loser fuck you public person now?

and the **&%#$ game begins.

[saz]

I am going with Obama for one simple reason, he is the most electable candidate the democrats have.

obama's good but he is in no way the most electable candidate the democrats have. the most electable candidate would be edwards, then obama. unfortunately, there are still many who will judge him merely by his name and skin colour.


He will not be out campaigned by any of the republican candidates. He is a political machine and most of his opponents know he isn't losing momentum. This is big that he is very savvy on the campaign road because unlike Gore he will influence the Moore's and Nader's of the world (like he has me) that the smart money is on Obama.

well, so far moore and nader haven't been won over by obama. they're not even close to being won over by obama. and speaking of moore, i don't know where you're getting that from, because moore desperately wanted gore to run again in '08. al gore was moore's number one choice. i originally supported obama. he is dead-on when it comes to foreign policy, especially his strong emphasis on pakistan. obama is also ten times better than hillary clinton. and the republicans would be so foolish to nominate someone old like mccain if obama is the democratic candidate. they'd have a field day campaigning against mccain, showing obama running up and down the stairs of the capital building, etc. but obama simply doesn't walk the populist walk and talk the populist talk like edwards. edwards is expressing the clear anger, outrage, and frustration of average americans who have watched their nation go down the crapper over the last seven years due to a grossly corrupt, incompetent, and criminal administration that should be locked up in prison. the other glaring aspect about obama is that, like hillary, he thinks that you can sit down and negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry in order to achieve universal healthcare; and that you can also sit down with the corporate lobbyists to find a solution to the decades-old dilemma of lobbyist control and influence in washington. that is simply a pipe dream. the only chance of achieving those objectives is taking on those corporate interests; of fighting them and kicking them out for good. and that is edwards' message and that is why it is resonating so well.

i do think though that an obama administration would be much more prone to investigate and prosecute bush, cheney et al once they're out of office, as opposed to another clinton administration.


Nader is to blame, so is Michael, they took votes away mistakingly thinking Gore had it wrapped up, just my opinion and a few million others.

keep dreaming, they did not take any votes away. gore was brutal in 2000 and ran a horrible campaign. he should have slaughtered bush in 2000. kerry should have as well in 2004. losing to george bush in an election is like a normal person losing at the special olympics.

and good for nader that he ran. not everyone wants to support a wishy-washy, half-baked, mediocre, over-consulted, wooden, wonkish flimsy centrist, pro-corporate moderate (at least that was the old gore; the new gore turned against nafta, was one of the first to speak out against illegally invading iraq, endorsed howard dean and made global warming his cause). there are those out there who are true progressives, socialists, liberals, greens etc. who won't settle for a push-over centrist democrat.

[yeahwho]

I read Michael Moore's web at least once a week, he is undecided. I know he wanted Gore (fucking idiot could've had him in 2000) and I also am a huge fan of Nader's, he is one of the most honest rational thinking humans alive.

Nader is absolutely correct when he says it's our constitutional right to vote for whomever we want to vote for. In context it's very patriotic, freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In my heart I know he's right but my perfectly functioning brain says he's a horses ass.

If you google up Nader Effect you'll see 1.3 million hits. I don't care what anybody says, he made a difference in the turnout for the 2000 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect).

[Documad]

I would like to kick Nader in the head.

[drizl]

If you google up Nader Effect you'll see 1.3 million hits. I don't care what anybody says, he made a difference in the turnout for the 2000 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect).

1.never reference wikipedia
2.dont believe that shit. the election was rigged.they just want you to think its naders fault.

[yeahwho]

drizl, even though I'm not currently subscribing to your hallucinations, I'm wondering if you ever did answer the original question that sent you on a quest to never, never land.....

Give us all a written policy by Ron Paul of his plan for Iraq troop withdrawals and dealing with the damage done from US intervention and consequent war? Or would that be meddling?

[DroppinScience]

1.never reference wikipedia

Dude, I haven't seen a large amount of peer-reviewed articles coming from you either. :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

It doesn't matter what the drizl has to say about anything on this particular thread, many people have done the research and realize that Barack is solid, smart, enthusiastic and very experienced with success. All of these people (of which I include myself in) are boosted by the Iowa win and look forward to a positive future in America.

Barack’s successes have been stated many many times and if you do any research at all, it’s easy to find. But I’ll just start with him being the first AA to be Editor of the Harvard Law Review, an extremely prestigious position that goes only to the most brilliant. One of the most esteemed law professors in America, Lawrence Tribe, says Barack is the best student he has ever had.

Barack was a very successful community organizer and among other things he signed up 150,000 new voters. He was a civil rights lawyer working for the disadvantaged, not earning millions suing ob-gyns and he also taught constitutional law at one of the top law schools in the country. As a young state senator he was extraordinarily successful in getting tough legislation passed by working with both sides of the aisle, such as reducing taxes for middle and low income earners, getting health care for hundreds of thousands of children, reforming Illinois’ shameful death row legacy and getting interrogations and confessions videotaped. He passed laws against racial profiling and ensuring equal rights for gays and lesbians and minorities and both genders.

He won a seat in the US Senate with an unprecedented 70% of the vote and again, was able to effect an unusual amount of legislation for a junior senator, getting more accomplished in two years than Hillary did in six. He got benefits for veterans in Illinois and worked hard for the victims of Katrina, worked to help Darfur and he increased aid for the Congo. He worked with both Republicans and Democrats to pass a nuclear non-proliferation bill and a bill for more transparency in government. There is now a website where anyone can check to see how tax dollars are being spent. He cosponsored the biggest election reform bill since Watergate. There were also numerous other accomplishments in Senate but that’s what I can think of off the top of my head.

It is not fair to mply that Obama is an empty suit with no accomplishments. He has a record that he’s extremely proud of with good reason. He’s much more than an inspiring speaker, he’s got many detailed proposals for what he wants to do when he’s president. This is the best day I've had in years as far as politics are concerned!

Cheers to all of you for your kind words.

[drizl]

iraq osama might be a smart guy, he might be a good thing for the country in light of the disasters created by the bush administration. however, he is NOT going to go as far as ron would in changing the course of this country.


for the close minded who are scared of the world and fear big changes and real freedom, iraq osama might be the best choice.
for the fearless who know what america is supposed to be about, and who understand the true meaning of freedom and liberty, ron is by far the better choice.

[drizl]

Cheers to all of you for your kind words.

caaaan you feeeeeel the loooove tonight, tonight

what a pussy

[yeahwho]

drizl, it's so easy, so so uncomplicated, have you offered it to everyone? this (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1543195&postcount=8)

[drizl]

haha, you are such a dork.

[yeahwho]

drizl I'm sure the above post has that genius of a political mind "Ron Paul's" written plan on how he would withdrawl troops from Iraq and heal the damage done by our mistaken war.

Oh wait, probably not, because it is now 2008 and for some incredibly lame reason the man you want to be the POTUSA has no written policy on WTF he'll do if elected about Iraq, other than he's against it.

Anyway I'm happy your here congratulating me on my candidates "total domination" in Iowa. Damnedest thing, it was the youth, the tech savvy youth of America who pushed him over the top. Smart people. yep....

Read all about it, eWeek.com (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2243536,00.asp)

It turns out the Internet vote was right, at least about the Democrats campaigning in the Iowa caucuses.

Since the presidential campaigns lit their networks a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama quickly sparked as one of the hottest political properties on the Web. Despite trailing in the national polls to Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Illinois senator easily raced ahead of Clinton among Facebook supporters and MySpace friends and in myriad other Internet metrics.

On Jan. 3, Obama won a real political race, upsetting the tough, well-heeled Clinton campaign in the Iowa caucuses. Riding a wave of young, text-messaging, tech-savvy Generation X volunteers, Obama captured 38 percent of Iowa Democrats, who turned out in record numbers. John Edwards and Clinton finished eight points back in a virtual tie for second place.

"You have done what the cynics said couldn't be done," Obama told supporters in his victory speech. "Our time for change has come."



Ron Paul still has his Blimp (http://dcist.com/attachments/dcist_sommer/2007_1207_ronpaulblimp.jpg).

He should sport a wig and some wood teeth too.

[Schmeltz]

^Speaking of Obama's victory speech, I just checked it out on YouTube and I have to say I'm extremely impressed. It's been a long time since I saw a politician speak with such vigour, clarity, and candour - and all the more refreshing was the man's theme of unity and hope. There was none of the obvious partisanship and gleeful gloating (to say nothing of ineloquence and hesitant verbal clumsiness) to which we've become so depressingly accustomed through the Bush years, only what seems to me a genuinely hopeful appraisal of the state of a nation and its need for rejuvenating change.

Pretty far cry from Ron Paul's antiquarian abandonism, and quite clearly much superior.

[drizl]

does iraq osama write his own speeches?

its funny because there is so much romanticism here when speaking about iraq osama. its like you all are sitting over there by your computers with a little chubby watching the caucases. kind of cute.

to me, obama or hilary (black man, or white woman) in office is just a false sense of change. make them think we are progressing. do you think obama will stop the dissolution of the constitution towards the north american union?
he did vote for homeland security bill, and both patriot acts did he not? he was the homeland security and governmental affairs committee wasnt he? the roll back of individual freedoms in the name of homeland security is a keystone to the building of the north american union.

[drizl]

scumbag (http://v=4SrtyFY6qTA&eurl=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/01/ross_investigates_obamarezko_c.html) also?

[Bob]

does iraq osama write his own speeches?

ahahahaha

[Bob]

ahahahaha you said it twice in that post, i didn't even get that far

that is some bill o'reilly stuff right there guy, where exactly do you get off calling other people right wing fascists (while supporting ron paul who really is decidedly right wing)

[Bob]

"b. hussein obama" is more clever btw, if you post on other boards you should use that instead (i won't say anything)

[drizl]

iraq hussein osama has a nice ring to it. its funny how play on words seem to always crop up in the elections...kind of like bush dick and colon.

[drizl]

turns out, 26 yr old Jon Favreau writes obamas speeches for him. awww, thats kind of cute.

[yeahwho]

drizl, I have you on ignore, even though I have you on ignore, I'm more than willing to believe you've either thrown your support 100% to Barack, or you've made an ass statement.

The latter will be true, I'm clairvoyant.

Because anything that has to do with reasonable written communication of clarity and consequence is beyond your mental grasp.

The easy way out is to be a dumbass, lower the bar and insult everybody*.

*except ericq, what's up with that? is it love?

[yeahwho]

I've taken drizl and ericg off of ignore, the funniest thing about those two is the morphing of topics and level of animosity they share towards us cowardly BBMB contributors here on the political discussion forum.

The only thing funnier and gayer is their interweaving threads and disappearing act all happening at once, that is so cute and man love like.

Nice garble and insults fellow(s)?

[QueenAdrock]

Way to insult the entire gay population. :(

[yeahwho]

Way to insult the entire gay population. :(

Let me rephrase, (coward:p)

I've taken drizl and ericg off of ignore, the funniest thing about those two is the morphing of topics and level of animosity they share towards us cowardly BBMB contributors here on the political discussion forum.

The only thing funnier and is their interweaving threads and disappearing act all happening at once, that is so cute and Jerry Fletcher* like.

Nice garble and insults fellow(s)?

*Not a direct hit at Mel Gibson.... just his portrayal in that movie.

[yeahwho]

Looks as though some of Edwards supporters will begin throwing support Obama's way. Here is an article today about the California health workers switching to Obama, Calif. Service Union to Back Obama (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/calif-service-union-weighs-backing-obama/), it's not huge in itself, but it sends a signal out about the sort of support Barack is beginning to garner from some very wealthy and politically savvy folks right on down to the working class of our country.

January has been great for Obama he has garnered 170,000 new supporters and $32 million in contributions. NYTimes article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/us/politics/01donate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). I'm pumped and very excited about his ability to go toe to toe with Hillary and also set the template for her behavior as shown last night in the debates. A very real negotiating strategy. Hillary is in defensive mode not trying to offend her supporters and really, really trying to not offend the millions of Obama's supporters.

Cool Stuff.

[NoFenders]

From the Onion

Barack Obama

Issues:
Pro-hopes, also supports dreams

Favorite Way To Mollify Supporters:
Nodding solemnly while gripping podium

Political Experience:
(2005–) Junior Senator from Illinois. Working directly under Senior Senator Richard Durbin himself, duties included fact-checking and copyediting the 2006 highway appropriations amendment bill. Member, Illinois State Senate (1997-2004)

Difficulty Catching A Cab:
Moderate

Personal Best For Getting Digits:
32 seconds

Odds Of Pop-Locking During Inauguration:
1 in 12

[yeahwho]

From the Onion

Barack Obama

Issues:
Pro-hopes, also supports dreams

Favorite Way To Mollify Supporters:
Nodding solemnly while gripping podium

Political Experience:
(2005–) Junior Senator from Illinois. Working directly under Senior Senator Richard Durbin himself, duties included fact-checking and copyediting the 2006 highway appropriations amendment bill. Member, Illinois State Senate (1997-2004)

Difficulty Catching A Cab:
Moderate

Personal Best For Getting Digits:
32 seconds

Odds Of Pop-Locking During Inauguration:
1 in 12

hilarious... those nutty writers at the Onion really have a firm grasp on the comedy.

[NoFenders]

hilarious... those nutty writers at the Onion really have a firm grasp on the comedy.

Actually the "political experience" is spot on.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

Actually the "political experience" is spot on.

:cool:
..... And to think if he didn't beat out a few hundred more experienced candidates and become one of 4 front runners for the 2008 nominee to be President of the United States.

On sheer ability to actually change the process of how we perceive ourselves, rather than being a political wank.

[yeahwho]

Los Angeles Times Endorsement of Barack Obama, 2/3/08 (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-dem3feb02,0,3530861.story)

excerpt;

With two candidates so closely aligned on the issues, we look to their abilities and potential as leaders, and their record of action in service of their stated ideals. Clinton is an accomplished public servant whose election would provide familiarity and, most important, competence in the White House, when for seven years it has been lacking. But experience has value only if it is accompanied by courage and leads to judgment.

Nowhere was that judgment more needed than in 2003, when Congress was called upon to accept or reject the disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a test and failed, joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war. At last week's debate and in previous such sessions, Clinton blamed Bush for abusing the authority she helped to give him, and she has made much of the fact that Obama was not yet in the Senate and didn't face the same test. But Obama was in public life, saw the danger of the invasion and the consequences of occupation, and he said so. He was right.

Obama demonstrates as well that he is open-eyed about the terrorist threat posed to the nation, and would not shrink from military action where it is warranted. He does not oppose all wars, he has famously stated, but rather "dumb wars." He also has the edge in economic policy, less because of particular planks in his platform than because of his understanding that some liberal orthodoxies developed during the last 40 years have been overtaken by history. He offers leadership on education, technology policy and environmental protection unfettered by the positions of previous administrations.

In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration.

[Documad]

Los Angeles Times Endorsement of Barack Obama, 2/3/08 (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-dem3feb02,0,3530861.story)

excerpt;

With two candidates so closely aligned on the issues,

That's the thing. They are almost identical on the issues. That's why I don't think Obama is special. I don't understand why people are so excited about him. I've never been big on "feel good" politics though. I have to admit that I would sleep a little better with Clinton in charge but that's just because I know the sort of people she would appoint. I also tend to like her speaking style more -- she's easier for me to understand. That's probably because I have more in common with her.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be fun to pick either a woman or a black person as president. Frankly, any democrat is fine with me.

[yeahwho]

That's the thing. They are almost identical on the issues. That's why I don't think Obama is special. I don't understand why people are so excited about him. I've never been big on "feel good" politics though. I have to admit that I would sleep a little better with Clinton in charge but that's just because I know the sort of people she would appoint. I also tend to like her speaking style more -- she's easier for me to understand. That's probably because I have more in common with her.

yes absolutely, voting for your candidate and who you feel has your best interest at hand is what it's all about.

I disagree that Obama is the same, he represents change in a huge way, probably the #1 way in my mind is breaking the Bush-Clinton-Bush aristocracy that overwhelms this fucked up generation. He is the underdog (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlIzT5uW7Rc) in this race, no doubt about it. Hillary is now backing off on political attacks and Bill is busy touring LA Churches attended by predominately black congregations.

The two candidates have just about the same endorsement factor (http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/01/democratic-endo.html), except of course the big endorsement from yeahwho goes to Obama.

[yeahwho]

Looks my endorsement pushed Ethel Kennedy (http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/robert_f_kennedy_widow_backs_b.html) into the fray today,

Her endorsement excerpt;

“Barack is so like Bobby, who struggled for the rights of the poor in the Mississippi Delta and Appalachia, traveled to California to stand in solidarity with Cesar Chavez and farm workers, and fought to end another war that cost so many lives," Kennedy said in a statement released by the Obama campaign.

“Over these past few years, I’ve watched Senator Obama inspire Americans from all walks of life to believe in real change and a new sense of hope and possibility. He’s a magnetic force, drawing the nation together for the common good and galvanizing us all to help shape our country’s future," Kennedy added.

Obama said in a statement he "was humbled to read Mrs. Kennedy’s statement. Few people hold such a cherished place in the hearts of Americans, and it’s an extraordinary honor to have her support.”

Ethel has clearly been impressed with Obama for some time. When Obama was invited in November 2005 to speak at a commemoration of Bobby Kennedy's 80th birthday, she referred to Obama as "our next president."

"I think he feels it. He feels it just like Bobby did," Mrs. Kennedy said in an interview with the Tribune that day, comparing her late husband's quest for social justice to Mr. Obama's. "He has the passion in his heart. He's not selling you. It's just him."

[Documad]

Wow, who knew that Ethel was still alive?

[yeahwho]

Wow, who knew that Ethel was still alive?

People who drive higher end vehicles always pump ethel.

[yeahwho]

Hulkster (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmiavw_-sE) Endorsement. Turn out the lights.

[yeahwho]

Oh yeah and don't forget the Kerry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86-or9XrUl0) (treebeards) endorsement.

[saz]

I disagree that Obama is the same, he represents change in a huge way, probably the #1 way in my mind is breaking the Bush-Clinton-Bush aristocracy that overwhelms this fucked up generation.

i completely disagree.

obama and clinton are a pair of superficial, posturing conservatives selling highly similar political packages using different emotional strategies. Obama is selling free trade and employer-based health care and an unclear Iraqi exit strategy using looks, charisma and optimism, while Hillary is selling much the same using hard, cold reality, "prose not poetry," managerial competence over "vision." (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/75233/?page=2)

obama does not want universal healthcare. he does not want to fight the lobbyists, nor ban them from the whitehouse, nor does he want to take on the private health insurance or pharmaceutical industry.

just look at obama's economic advisors: there is nothing progressive (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/obamas-economic-advisers/) or left-leaning (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/obamas-conservative-econ_b_83315.html) about them. there is no real change (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/barack-obamas-progressiv_b_75933.html) with him.

"Of course, underneath the veneer of fresh-faced optimism that Obama is pushing -- note that the word "idealism" isn't appropriate here, because Obama isn't selling idealism so much as a kind of reinvigorated, feel-good pragmatism -- there operates a massive, well-oiled political machine no less ruthless and ambitious than that of his establishment rival, Hillary Clinton. Obama has raised $80 million, and it would be a grievous mistake to describe his candidacy as a grass-roots affair, particularly when he counts among his bundlers many of the lobbyists and political-finance pros who buttress the Clinton run.

Even a cursory glance at Obama's money men is enough to confirm that fact. The list includes Wall Street hotshots from Lehman Brothers, Oppenheimer and Co., and Citigroup, a smattering of Hollywood players and Native American casino interests, representatives of big pharmaceuticals and the insurance sector -- in short, all the major food groups of reviled corporate influence-hunters.

Worse still, Obama's financial backing is reflected in some of his Senate votes and campaign positions, including most notably his support for expanding NAFTA to Peru, limiting the ability of injured workers and consumers to sue for damages, and pouring federal funds into E85 corn-based ethanol, an alternative fuel for which the market is dominated by the Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland Company. More than once I heard Obama give stirring speeches, only to mar them with plugs for ethanol." (link (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/70714/); plus obama's big business donors (http://nymag.com/news/politics/30634/).

while i do admit that both obama and clinton, the lesser evils, would be a huge change from the current mess. and i supported him at one point. however there is real change out there, and they are genuine (http://www.gp.org/index.php).

[yeahwho]

i completely disagree.

while i do admit that both obama and clinton, the lesser evils, would be a huge change from the current mess. and i supported him at one point. however there is real change out there, and they are genuine (http://www.gp.org/index.php).

I more than completely disagree with your alternate "real change" I find the green party politics divisive and at this point in our history destructive.

look I'm not going to beleaguer this point, I'm a Kucinich democrat. I've compromised myself by backing Obama, I know he's not ideal in any sort of way, shape or form. But I'm here and alive, I'm a big boy now and I understand the ways of the political scene, I know either is any fucking other candidate ideal in any sort of way, shape or form.

Millions of Americans are just like me, we're not stupid or naive. We understand the monsters beckoning and we're looking for a fighting chance to maintain ground as US citizens.

[saz]

you find the green party politics "divisive" and "destructive"? but you call yourself a kucinich democrat and once supported edwards.

division and being divisive is what politics is all about. it's war. for the last seven years, the republicans have pretty much run the country down the toilet. and they did everything in their power to not only destroy bill clinton, but also accuse dems of not being patriotic and treasonous by not supporting bush's war policies, or "not supporting the troops". where is the logic in reaching out and working with them. the dems should be steamrolling a left, progressive agenda over their corpses. they should be having non-stop oversight hearings and holding all of their feet to the fire. but instead, we get a bunch of super wimps who graduated from the neville chamberlain school of appeasement and continue to fund the war and are for some reason afraid of standing up to a president who has a 27% approval rating. plus impeachment is "off the table" :rolleyes:. you don't reach out these criminals, nor deride division and champion bi-partisanship. that is what is "destructive" here, the complete collapse of the many, many democrats in not only standing up to the republicans, but also adopting their economic agenda and pro business/trade/anti-union bias.

true change is all about standing up and being divisive. what donna edwards (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/#75787) and the progressive democrats are doing is admirable. (y)

[yeahwho]

you find the green party politics "divisive" and "destructive"? but you call yourself a kucinich democrat and once supported edwards. (y)
I don't call myself a Kucinich democrat. I was a Kucinich democrat and really do not need any sort of lesson about Kucinich, I know his platform inside out, use the search function here, type Kucinich, you'll see yeahwho in that thread.

I am now a Obama supporter. I'm not calling myself a Obama supporter, I am a Obama supporter. I became a Obama supporter once I realized how futile all other options are. The very best I feel I can do is to stop the republicans and stop the Clintons.

I think it is the very best any of us can do. This leaves all of us "NO" wiggle room now. So go ahead and be an idealist, I care that you may take away votes from the only rational choice. That is all I care about. If Nader et;al really gave a shit about our country he would come out and say he is going to keep his principles in tact, hold his ego and work within the confines of system. I would support his cause 100% then. Otherwise what I've seen happen before borders on complete disregard for life. I feel that strongly about it.

[saz]

I don't call myself a Kucinich democrat. I was a Kucinich democrat and really do not need any sort of lesson about Kucinich, I know his platform inside out, use the search function here, type Kucinich, you'll see yeahwho in that thread.

i wasn't attempting to give you a lesson about kucinich, but rather commenting on how pathetic the democrats have become.


I think it is the very best any of us can do. This leaves all of us "NO" wiggle room now. So go ahead and be an idealist, I care that you may take away votes from the only rational choice.

so, if someone decides to vote with their conscious, ie what they believe in, their values and core beliefs, they're not being rational, or not making a rational choice?


That is all I care about. If Nader et;al really gave a shit about our country he would come out and say he is going to keep his principles in tact, hold his ego and work within the confines of system.

sorry, but nader and the green party are doing a trememdous service by providing a clear, leftist, progressive, and third alternative choice for many who can't bring themselves to vote for those who pay lip service to average americans and their dilemmas, yet serve corporate interests.

[yeahwho]

i wasn't attempting to give you a lesson about kucinich, but rather commenting on how pathetic the democrats have become.

Pathetic maybe but Kucinich is doing more than the Greens as an elected Congressman. He is doing all the things the Greens say they will do. The name of the game is votes, swaying votes towards your vision of America. So as ugly and pandering as that may be to some, I am able to understand it. The over-riding cause is to get elected. I'm working on getting Obama elected.


so, if someone decides to vote with their conscious, ie what they believe in, their values and core beliefs, they're not being rational, or not making a rational choice?

I am voting with my conscious, I hope all of us do. My picture of the end result requires compromise. I am willing to compromise, your not and I understand that. If you change your mind and want to air it here in an honest intelligent manner I respect that too. I'm accommodating to change of heart.


sorry, but nader and the green party are doing a trememdous service by providing a clear, leftist, progressive, and third alternative choice for many who can't bring themselves to vote for those who pay lip service to average americans and their dilemmas, yet serve corporate interests.

These are issues I hold dear to my heart, I never realized that a right wing agenda could cause such a fucking nightmare in America.... I'm much more concerned with stopping the hemorrhage now anyway possible. Nader should be too.

[yeahwho]

Michelle (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04mon4.html?ref=opinion), Maria (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3jMOqs_uQQ&feature=user), Caroline (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltbpoYT8LVY&eurl=http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/video-oprah-caroline-kennedy-michelle-obama-maria-shriver-stevie-wonder-ucl) and Oprah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_FJQMriZUg&feature=user)

Oh yeah...and Stevie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWL1G8iu32g)

[yeahwho]

Grateful Dead to reunite for Obama concert (http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0147632420080202)

[NoFenders]

Barack wants change..................................for a dolla. :cool:

[saz]

Pathetic maybe but Kucinich is doing more than the Greens as an elected Congressman. He is doing all the things the Greens say they will do. The name of the game is votes, swaying votes towards your vision of America. So as ugly and pandering as that may be to some, I am able to understand it.

well, obviously kucinich is getting things accomplished and championing a progressive agenda because he is an elected official. he yields power. that's a no brainer. realistically for the greens, they will make their first in-roads to elected office on the local and municipal levels. but until that time arrives, it's really not fair to compare the two. plus, many greens, including nader, support progressive democrats like kucinich and edwards. even former democratic congresswoman cynthia mckinney is making a bid for the green party nomination.

anyways we disagree about obama and i'm glad that we can do so civilly, without getting too hostile.

meanwhile i did want to add this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&ex=1359867600&en=a51a8e1abbd47b79&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin), which i think documad might be interested in. and, if it is indeed an obama vs. mccain match up in the election (but never underestimate romney, a mormon republican who was elected governor in massachusetts of all places), you can expect this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/mccain-has-some-questions_b_84766.html).

[yeahwho]

Paul Krugman must be aware that Hillary Clinton has tried this before and failed 100%. I am really amazed at his utter disregard for that fact.


On This Week, Clinton Again Refuses to Answer How She Will Enforce 'Mandate'
February 03, 2008

CLINTON CONSISTENTLY REFUSES TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF HOW HER MANDATE WOULD BE ENFORCED

FEBRUARY 3, 2008: Clinton Says People Who Don't Sign Up For Health Insurance "Won't Have to Pay Fines"; Then Says One Option For Enforcement is "Going After People's Wages." When asked about her enforcement mechanism, Clinton said, "Well, they don't have to pay fines, George. We want them to have insurance. We want it to be affordable." When pushed again on whether or not she would garnish wages, Clinton said, "George, we will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments…And the reason why I think there are a number of mechanisms, going after people's wages, automatic enrollment, when you are at the place of employment, you will be automatically enrolled, whatever the mechanism is." [ABC, 2/3/08]

I'm sifting through the endorsements and even though many of you probably will go with Hillary I have to ask what I'm missing here. The odd sense of entitlement Clinton has that she is more experienced and a woman makes 0 sense to me. In fact it's quite the opposite, she scares the hell out of me with this 8 more years of Clinton's after Bush, I know Bush was bad but man I think many of you are really settling familiarity over direction.

[yeahwho]

Obama trounces Clinton here in my home state of Washington during our State caucus's, 2 to 1 in favor of Barack. I'm not sure if Obama will go all the way but I do have to say he is an inspirational human which millions of Americans can identify with. His ability to convey what has been missing for decades is what I find special about Barack Obama, we've been missing any sense of purpose that aligns the rest of the planet with us.

Here is to a better future and much more success to the Barack man.

[freetibet]

I'm quite sure, that in the end the racism deeply rooted in Your hearts and minds will speak and either H.C. shall be nominated candidate or McCain shall beat the crap out of B. "I studied in Indonesia" Osama...

I love political correctness.

[yeahwho]

I'm quite sure, that in the end the racism deeply rooted in Your hearts and minds will speak and either H.C. shall be nominated candidate or McCain shall beat the crap out of B. "I studied in Indonesia" Osama...

I love political correctness.

Everyone's an expert, thats the beauty of perception and ones grasp on reality.

I have to say at your current level, you are an expert on both.

[King PSYZ]

Do you guys realize there's just shy of 800 superdelegates?

Do you also know that Clinton and her campaign are positioning that if she keeps loosing primaries and cacuses she'll push her establishment buddies to basically subvert the will of the public (Obama is leading by regular delegates and popular vote) and force Obama to shutter his campaign by getting all of the superdelegates to insert her into the nomination.

She hasn't exactly kept this quiet. In fact right now it's the worst kept secret in politics. Many long time democrats have already said they would leave the party if this happens. Which to most wouldn't seem like much, but many of those saying they'll leave are big time fundraisers for the party.

With all this talk of the Republicans splinting their party, seems Hillary is looking to throw it into a wood chipper just to get the nod. Not realising she will quickly become a lame duck president at best. Openly saying fuck you to the constituancy going into the election for the highest office in the land is not exactly a smart move and we could see Romney or McCain winning just because many Dems will feel disenfranchised and not bother to vote or throw it away on a small time third party canidate or write in.

[NoFenders]

^ Very true!

:cool:

[yeahwho]

Yeah but, Obama picked up a Grammy win (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Obama_wins_Grammy_whitest_US_state/articleshow/2774743.cms) over the weekend.

I do think John Edwards will play a role with whomever he endorses. It is a very tight race, many established politico's like Hillary's status quo lika a seamless transition (meaning more of the same BS) so perhaps you have a point, we'll see there are 796 super-delegates, As this graph shows (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-delegates_monfeb11,1,7631293.story) the super delegate scenario you are describing is but one factor, not the only factor in which many other possibilities exist to sway delegates. Hillary's best campaigning technique has been pigeon-holed by the Barack Obama campaign, he is setting the template for tone and his tone will win, unless she dreams up a better scenario for 6 pack Joe.

[saz]

many Dems will feel disenfranchised and not bother to vote or throw it away on a small time third party canidate or write in.

so, people will "throw it away" by voting with their conscious and what they believe in?

[King PSYZ]

Yes, I used to be the guy saying vote with your heart blah blah blah.

I voted for Nader because I thought he would do the country good, at least allowing for a third party.

Boy was I mistaken, and those along with me who made the same mistake didn't get Green representation in the House or Senate. What we got is 8 years of George W. Bush and a big fuck you from those who knew better.

Had I not voted with my heart but my brain, and others had done the same we might even have dodged a conflict in Iraq equalling the lives of thousands on thousands of Americans and Iraqis alike.

If you know voting for someone will have no bearing on getting someone in office you belive in, but as a way of telling Washington how you feel and "sticking it to the man" I have a news flash for you.

THEY DON'T FUCKING CARE!

I know it's shocking, but it's true. A few hundred or even thousand votes means nothing to the same political machine that allowed for an illegal war to be waged and the invasion of a country (even if it was a fucked up government).

[saz]

200,000 registered democrats in florida voted for bush in 2000, plus gore couldn't even carry his home state of tennessee. al gore doesn't blame nader and the green party for his election loss, but rather the supreme court, which is completely justified. there was also some extremely shady business occuring on election night in ohio in '04, with those diebold voting machines. regardless, the fact that the democratic party lost to george w. bush twice is stunning. it's unbelievable. losing to him in an election is just like a normal person losing in the special olympics. the wimpy, spineless, centrist, corporate dems have gotten, and will continue to get what they deserve until they grow some balls and field better national candidates. gore was brutal in '00, but he's since come into his own and seems to have moved to the left. i respect kerry as a man and as a senator, especially for his role in exposing iran-contra, but as a national candidate he was horrible. the two party system is deplorable and very outdated, but in addition, until the dems get back to what they once were, they'll continue to be complete pushovers.

now i can completely empathize with your sentiments, especially considering how fascistic the republican party and in particular the bush administration has been, ie drastic times call for drastic measures. but the democrats aren't really that different. they are enabling bush and republicans by not only with impeachment being "off the table", but also by voting for the war, continuing to fund it, not doing anything about blackwater, haliburton, fisa and immunity for telecommunications corporations, harriet miers and the firing of us attornies, and a subpar job with congressional oversight. it seems that only henry waxman has been fighting the administration tooth and nail, with kucinich and other progressives calling for impeachment. anyways, they are enablers because they're actively cooperating, or providing a flimsy and weak opposition. either way they're weak and need a serious wake-up call. no wonder so many have been turned off by them, and in order to win those people back they need to stand up, provide a serious opposition and not be enablers.

[DroppinScience]

200,000 registered democrats in florida voted for bush in 2000, plus gore couldn't even carry his home state of tennessee. al gore doesn't blame nader and the green party for his election loss, but rather the supreme court, which is completely justified. there was also some extremely shady business occuring on election night in ohio in '04, with those diebold voting machines. regardless, the fact that the democratic party lost to george w. bush twice is stunning. it's unbelievable. losing to him in an election is just like a normal person losing in the special olympics. the wimpy, spineless, centrist, corporate dems have gotten, and will continue to get what they deserve until they grow some balls and field better national candidates. gore was brutal in '00, but he's since come into his own and seems to have moved to the left. i respect kerry as a man and as a senator, especially for his role in exposing iran-contra, but as a national candidate he was horrible. the two party system is deplorable and very outdated, but in addition, until the dems get back to what they once were, they'll continue to be complete pushovers.

now i can completely empathize with your sentiments, especially considering how fascistic the republican party and in particular the bush administration has been, ie drastic times call for drastic measures. but the democrats aren't really that different. they are enabling bush and republicans by not only with impeachment being "off the table", but also by voting for the war, continuing to fund it, not doing anything about blackwater, haliburton, fisa and immunity for telecommunications corporations, harriet miers and the firing of us attornies, and a subpar job with congressional oversight. it seems that only henry waxman has been fighting the administration tooth and nail, with kucinich and other progressives calling for impeachment. anyways, they are enablers because they're actively cooperating, or providing a flimsy and weak opposition. either way they're weak and need a serious wake-up call. no wonder so many have been turned off by them, and in order to win those people back they need to stand up, provide a serious opposition and not be enablers.

I wish you were wrong, but unfortunately, you're dead right.

Now, even in the most ideal of hypoethetical situations, if Barack were to win the Democratic nomination and get to the White House, there's plenty of cause for rejoice and celebration. However, I think there'd be a danger of deluding ourselves into thinking that all the problems would be solved and the population as a whole returns to their slumber with the mentality that "the system has corrected itself." In truth, the work needed to be done would just be beginning.

[King PSYZ]

I'm ready for the job at hand, I hope more are as well.

[NoFenders]

Has Al Gore endorsed anyone yet???? :cool:

[saz]

senate democrats (n)


Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/12/senate-oks-immunity-for-t_n_86236.html)

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Tuesday to shield from lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

After nearly two months of stops and starts, the Senate rejected by a vote of 31 to 67 a move to strip away a grant of retroactive legal immunity for the companies.

President Bush has promised to veto any new surveillance bill that does not protect the companies that helped the government in its warrantless wiretapping program, arguing that it is essential if the private sector is to give the government the help it needs.

About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecom companies by people alleging violations of wiretapping and privacy laws.

The Senate also rejected two amendments that sought to water down the immunity provision.

Full telecom immunity must still be approved by the House; its version of the surveillance bill does not provide immunity.


Comments:

"The Democratic Party controlled Senate confirmed torturer Mukasey, approved retroactive immunity for the criminal activity of telecoms and expanded the right of the government and telecoms to trample on civil liberties into the future and provided full funding for Bush's, Hillary's and Obama's war (If they won't commit to getting out all of the troops and contractors by 2013, it is their war too).

Now I want to hear from another of the Democratic Party Pavlovian, Nader-baiting trolls to respond that what we have to do is elect more Democrats because we don't have 60 votes. Here, despite having 50 Democrats and 1 Independent, and only needed 41, we couldn't get that 41.

All the Dems want is for us to elect people who trample on our rights and use our young to fight their wars against our interests who are labeled Democrat instead of Republican -- so their cronies can make them rich instead of Republican cronies making Republicans rich."



Statement of Purpose: To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.

Vote Counts:

YEAs 31
NAYs 67
Not Voting 2

Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Nay

linkage (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015)

[yeahwho]

How the senate votes on the telecommunications bill is really very loosely related, in only the most obscure way, to my topic of backing Obama. It is probably best to take that sort of stuff to a new thread. The presidential race is just that, a presidential race. The current political climate is predominated by a bunch of panty waist knee jerk sycophants who have a president unable to communicate even the most elementary dribble about rags and such. He is Roveless and uninsulated, shit he's just figuring out Darfur.

They will do what they do until we decide to change the climate of Washington DC.

But for now, super-delegates be damned, my man Barack has major "O"mentum.

[saz]

obama voted with dodd and the rest of the dems who voted 'yea'. and that post wasn't in reference to obama, or to your support for him, but rather to another topic of discussion which has arisen in this thread, ie the democrats. regardless, threads sometimes do involve having different topics or side discussions raised. funny though that you mentioned "they will do what they do until we decide to change the climate of Washington DC", because my post directly addressed that fact, that the dems are voting with and enabling the republicans, and therefore the democratic congress isn't bringing about change.

[King PSYZ]

after sweeping this past weekend's contests we have Barack sweeping tonights as well!

like a snowball rolling down a hill it's only gonna get bigger from here.

[DroppinScience]

Congrats to Obama for winning Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. (y)

[QueenAdrock]

my man Barack has major "O"mentum.

Now yeahwho, you know I like you, but you just made me throw up in my mouth a little. :mad:

[NoFenders]

Does this mean we'll get free BubbleUp and Rainbow Stew???

I do like those lyrics btw

:cool:

[yeahwho]

Now yeahwho, you know I like you, but you just made me throw up in my mouth a little. :mad:

That is good, it means I've accomplished part of my mission with that post.

I wondered if that catch-phrase might cause some gullet Barack up in a few people..

[abbott]

I am in

[yeahwho]

funny though that you mentioned "they will do what they do until we decide to change the climate of Washington DC", because my post directly addressed that fact, that the dems are voting with and enabling the republicans, and therefore the democratic congress isn't bringing about change.

There have been eight (8) major vetoes since the democratic congress became majority in 2006.

Bills such as these below were vetoed,

-Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005
-U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007.
-Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007
-Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008

Many of the above bills were the will of American citizens with time line's included into them for an Iraq war troop withdrawal. These bills were introduced by a democratic majority, then vetoed. It takes a two thirds majority to over-ride and block a veto in congress.

As a result of the 2006 elections, the Senate is composed of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and two Democratic-caucusing Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman).

Congress has a slight majority but no "two thirds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress)", much of what I'm saying may seem weak in argument, but really these bills are never going to win with GWB vetoing them.

Obama will change this climate, just as Hillary can.

[QUOTE from sazi ]obama voted with dodd and the rest of the dems who voted 'yea'.

The funny part of that statement is Hillary had a non-vote....which of course if current memory serves me correct, her party and the media jumped all over Obama on "non-votes" while holding his senate seat.

If people want Hillary for president around here they sure are being quiet. That is the vibe I'm getting.

[yeahwho]

The odds are beginning to become insurmountable, Barack Obama has turned out support and political will unlike any other democratic presidential candidate since, will...Bill Clinton.

here is an excerpt from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/stories/2008/02/21/Bookmaned_0221.html) today 2/21/08;

Obama's victory has to impress and to a degree even frighten Republican political professionals. Try as they might, the Republicans have not been able to beat the Clintons. They couldn't beat Bill, and in two Senate elections they couldn't beat Hillary either.

Between them, the Clintons have been regarded as two of the smartest, most fearsome politicians of their generation. And yet Obama, coming out of nowhere, has now beaten them both, in a campaign in which Hillary had all the initial advantages.

In the past few weeks, GOP commentators have already begun re-targeting their cannons from Clinton to Obama. In his victory speech after the Wisconsin primary, John McCain also focused almost exclusively on Obama. They fear Obama not merely because he will be more difficult to beat as president, but because he would make a lot of other Democrats difficult to beat as well.

The reason is turnout.

It's pretty clear that Obama would bring a lot of young people and black people to the polls that Clinton could not have attracted, and they will vote Democratic. The enthusiasm he has generated among those groups hasn't been seen in a long, long time. JAY BOOKMAN

This is becoming the tone of the race. I am extremely happy. The fact that the focus, either negative or bad is always on Obama shows most voters aren't even thinking about Hillary's race at all, only when she mentions Obama does she get any attention. Amazing, that is amazing.

We've all witnessed one of the most fascinating political machines ever.

[NoFenders]

The funny part of that statement is Hillary had a non-vote....which of course if current memory serves me correct, her party and the media jumped all over Obama on "non-votes" while holding his senate seat.




I think Clintons party jumped on the over 100 non votes. That's over 100. Quite a bit more than they'd have you believe, but then again, there's only two people in the 100 seat Senate that have been there less amount of time than the great Obama, so I'm sure he was busy getting things in order for his Presidency. Clinton on the other hand has been in her seat since 2000, and still doesn't have that many non-votes on her record. kinda big if you ask me. But we aren't voting on what he's done, or hasn't done in the past, we're voting on what he will do, or says he'll do in the future right??? :rolleyes:

I know I'm seriously in for it when I start defending Hillary. YIKES!!!! Lol

:cool:

[yeahwho]

I know I'm seriously in for it when I start defending Hillary. YIKES!!!! Lol

:cool:
I actually think it's nice to see somebody defend Hillary. The back lash (or should I Barack lash) in this campaign is mostly aimed at Barack without any real defense of Hillary. So your actual defense is refreshing.

Many times in the legislature the vote is made up for lawmakers (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3439567502592737123&q=no+show+voting+in+the+legislature&total=46&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) by somebody else.