Reply #14: Hey, I'm with you on the class war part. ("Dude, Where's My Country?") [View All]

[mojowork_n]

But I think, to wage that war as effectively as possible, it should be a War to Take Back America.

A bus that anyone can feel free to jump on.

Just minutes ago, I finished a response in another thread, the post on Robert Parry's article which made an inference, that if HRC is elected, she's already signalling to the Other Side, The Twit has nothing to fear, prosecution-wise. This is what I said:

What none of us should lose sight of (no matter which of the Democratic candidates we're pulling for) is that from the very beginning -- even before all the votes were counted in 2000 -- this may very well have been the most corrupt, deceitful, and oppressive administration in American history.

Whether or not it was the absolute worst may never be known -- or confirmed -- not unless someone starts appointing independent prosecutors.

People on both sides of the aisle have things to be nervous about. Today's NYT piece by the Republican and the Democratic heads of the 9/11 Commission, on evidence that was concealed, or destroyed, during the waterboarding/torture investigation, is like a little faberge egg or cameo, a representative example, of that. Nancy Pelosi and others on our side, were briefed and reportedly gave waterboarding a pass.

John Conyers has a 1,200 or 1,400 page report already compiled, on The Chimp's misdeeds and constitutional violations -- a link is available on the right side of "Time for Change's" Journal home page -- but unless the right sort of leaders step forward, it's never going anywhere.

It could be the most important question that comes up during the 2008 campaign. The Republicans will do everything in their power to suppress it, but I think it's important, and perfectly legitimate, to consider the attitude of all of the Democratic candidates when it comes to investigating/prosecuting * for his crimes.

Anyway, I think that also applies here. It's a bigger question than how nasty can we expect the Republican noise machine to be, so how pissed off/gloves-off/feisty do we want our candidate to be? We all know they're going to be hitting below the belt, early and often, just as hard as they can.

They've got absolutely nothing to lose by doing it, but I think the voting public is starting to figure them out. Consider how well Huckabee and Ron Paul are doing, and how badly the worst of the fear-mongering candidates, Rudy, has tailed off.

Right now, this minute, I'm pulling for Edwards to win in Iowa and New Hampshire, but I hope Obama has a strong showing, too. I've already flipped once, between those two. I heard Obama speak, last spring, and I was very impressed. I'm not expecting him to ever be able to walk on water, but if (as I suspect), he's got more going for him than you or Paul Krugman give him credit for, he could still inject something unique into the race, that goes beyond the usual Dem wussiness.

To tell you the truth, however low the Republicans go, or how badly they want to turn him into some sort of madrass-bred threat to all that is decent and holy, I'm still hoping he keeps going with what's working for him -- I hope that Barack continues to do Will Smith.

Remember the smart, fearless, feisty fighter pilot that actor played in "Independence Day?" He was even more impressive, and nuanced, in the role of a selfless medical researcher/ninja warrior in "I Am Legend", his latest.

We've come a long way since Willie Horton.

There are some new role models out there, now. I don't know if he's doing it consciously, but Barack reminds me more than a little of Will Smith, and it's working for me. He's a black man, he'll never be able to play Ice-T, or Rev. Al, for that matter, but he could have more going for him than a lot of people give him credit for.

Oh, shoot, I may have just flipped, again.