I'm very disappointed and pissed off tonight, so please forgive this, but.....

[Armstead]

What the hell are we? Stupid beyond belief?

Jeezum H. Christmas. This country is rapidly going to hell in a handbasket, and what do we do? We are choosing to have another presidential race in which the choices are going to be Bad Vs Worse.

Bad is eight more years of Wimpy and Corrupt kowtowing to the Corporate Elite by the Democratic Party.

Worse is eight more years of the GOP.

Why the hell don't we learn? Are we going to continue to be driven by the politics of nostalgia for a decade in which the Democrats presided over the Selling of America? Fer Gawds sake. Enron didn't start with Bush. Nor did the replacement of Civil Society by the Power of Capital. Nor did the polarization of the American economy, or the decimation of the middle class and the total crossing out of the poor.

I expect the Republicans to make awful choices. That's their job.

But Democrats are supposed to be the counterpoint to that. At a time when Corporate Power and Global Big Capital have their boots on our collective faces, one would think the so-called party of liberal and progressive values would stand up and fight back.

But instead, we are surrendering. Going for the V-Chip triangulating fellow travellers of the Corporate Elite. Ignoring any tinges of progressive populism.

Another Damn Issue-Free General Election in which Big Problems will be met with Small Answers.

I will support the Democratic nominee, etc. etc. etc.....But it is so discouraging that at a time when the country ought to be ripe for real change, the Democratic Party seems to want to go Back to the Future and keep the "centrist" stranglehold intact.

It is so depressing.

Sorry I had to get this off my chest.

[polichick]

1. It's even worse...

Choosing a centrist guarandamntees that someone else will get into the race ~ think Nader and Bloomberg.

Another Republican victory.

[Armstead]

3. Alas you might be right

I think Nader would be irrelevant numerically.

But in a contest between McCain/Romney/Rudy vs. Hillary with a Bloomberg in the race, it'd be better-than-even-money that the Democrats will have the oxegyn sucked out.

[defendandprotect]

141. Younger people don't seem to understand Nader contributions to what we

know politically --- anything we talk about - corporate fascism, for instance --
and the solutions to our many problems --- are concepts Nader advanced.

I know even Randi Rhodes was quite ignorant of his history --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

142. IMO, Bloomberg is a Republican --- isn't he .. . ???

[DeeDeeNY]

153. Bloomberg is an Independent

He used to be a Democrat and then changed to Republican so he could run for NYC mayor. And now he's an Independent and appears to be seriously considering a run, which would very much split the Democratic vote.

[defendandprotect]

173. Of course he's an "independent" . . . the question was . . . isn't he a REPUBLICAN????

Naturally, I meant in his policies ---
As far as I can see, that's true --- a Repug ---

[DeeDeeNY]

181. No, if anything he's a liberal

And he would definitely siphon votes away from a Democratic candidate.

[defendandprotect]

185. What is liberal and/or progressive about Bloomberg --- a billionaire?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706250010

Additionally, he supported Bush in 2004 ---
and he supports the Patriot Act ---
and the Iraq war ---

PLUS a number of other very non-progressive/non-liberal stands on various issues ---

[papau]

163. Concepts Nader advanced? - no - not really - SDS at the 63 Boston first meeting was discussing those...

topic's and we pretty much got to the point many people are finally at now - Nader was no help

Good grief Nader was a consumer advocate claiming a car (the Corvair) turned over more than others - and it turns out his stats were bad since for its size and weight it was no worse than other cars (granted few cars were designed for safety back then - and he was a leader in changing that - and his little side companies/groups all do good from the 80's to today).

But as far as politics goes, Nader was a zero before he went negative with the 3rd party con (all parties are alike) that was used to elect the GOP - over and over again- as the GOP funded his efforts and provided the manpower for getting the signatures that got him on the ballot. Nader was/is a GOP ploy for electing the GOP, much like Bev Harris (of don't pass Hoyt audits for 08 because paper more important than audits) is.

[defendandprotect]

175. Of course Nader's political groups brought us the reality of corporate financing of campaigns --

and corporate-fascism ---

Describing Nader as someone chasing cars --- and doing it wrong --- is an effort to confuse readers.

Gore won 2000 and Kerry probably won 2004 ---
we probably had a bigger win in 2006 -- and a larger majority --
What we have is vote-stealing but you can continue to hide that reality from using as long as
you want to buy the "Nader did it theme" ---

[papau]

182. corporate financing of campaigns was USSC"free speech"- corporate-fascism began with the USSC giving

corporations "person" rights and a forever life.

Not connected all that much with the Democratic party.

Vote stealing/election theft requires audits to stop it - but the GOP was able via Bev and a few, in contrast to Bev, nice good intentioned folks I think are mis-guided paper only liberals - to stop the audit bill HR811.

As to "Describing Nader as someone chasing cars --- and doing it wrong --- is an effort to confuse readers" - no that is just history. Ralph did good with the GM settlement money and was a good guy and a force for good change until he went over to the dark side for whatever reason - I don't think it was GOP money and I suspect it was just his ego - but god only knows for sure.

[defendandprotect]

184. Largely unclear . . . however . . .

Corporate-fascism began with capitalism --- !!!

Royalty simply morphed into capitalists/corporations ---

[papau]

192. but Royalty is forever - even post coups - capitalist "charters" were time limited and reviewed by

the state for termination -

but after the USSC decision there were "no" limits or controls.

Granted corporations not being challenged had already developed as an idea and termination would have been near impossible because of money in politics, but the idea of termination of right to economically exist was a control, however tepid.

The "mixed capitalist system" of state involvement in much, but with the driver of greed being maintained by "capitalism" seems to work well - IMHO.

[defendandprotect]

196. Again, mainly unclear . . .

How is royalty "forever" . . . ?

The Supreme's decision re corporations is in dispute --- the headline said one thing,
the decision another.

What changed things has been corporate infiltration of our political parties and government --
with the power of $ to do this. The corruption of our government agencies intended to monitor
corporations and our laws . . . "according to the spirit and intent with which Congress wrote the laws."

"The Buying of Government" --- "The Buying of Representatives" --
ALL issues brought to the fore by Nader.
ExxonMobil $36 BILLION last year.

Capitalism has never worked well, nor does it work well now.
Today it is frequently called "predatory" capitalism -- or "savage capitalism" -- or "disaster capitalism."
Only REGULATED capitalism works -- though economic democracy/democratic socialism would work better.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

117. I remember when I couldn't believe my eyes

at seeing Madeline Albright, for heaven's sakes, at one of Hillary's gatherings. Iowa?

[ZinZen]

168. Hillary trotting out her dinosaurs did not look good

it looked sad. Have you noticed that she now has young people in the background. LOL

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Vote for Kang! The boys are mean to her!... No ! Vote for Kodos! Kang's supporters are mean racists!

It's tragic that issues can't make a cameo appearance in this little drama.

It is indeed depressing. But we soldier on.

[avaistheone1]

6. Blloomberg would not be insignificant. Bloomberg has all the money in the world to spend.

What about an Edwards and Bloomberg ticket?

Both are self-made men.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. Not exactly a match made in heaven.

Be a bit of a bipolar ticket.

[harmonicon]

113. both are conservative white dudes - just the change we need..... *sigh*

[unc70]

187. Why do you think Edwards is a conservative? prob. more lib than C ro O

Edwards is rated by most (I among them) as a bit more liberal than Clinton or Obama (who seems the most conservative of the three), although less liberal than Kucinich.

Do you think Edwards is perceived as more conservative because he is a Southern white man? Or Obama, more liberal than really is because he is AA?

Would you have rated the late Paul Wellstone as a conservative white dude? The Wellstones were also alumni of UNC Chapel Hill (Paul both undergrad and PhD) and were well-known to DU.

[harmonicon]

193. I think Obama and Clinton are also both quite conservative

Edwards is probably no more or less so.... sure, he's to the left of many Republicans, but he's well to the right of Wellstone, Kucinich, Conyers, and some other Democrats. He's a hawkish, pro free trade Democrat. He's not the devil, but he's not our saviour either.

[99th_Monkey]

4. My thoughts exactly! ~ Edwards is already being Kucinich-ed out of the picture

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4122311&mesg_id=4122311

I want him - or somebody - to do something about it..

[Armstead]

9. He was X-ed out weeks ago.....After winning 2nd in Iowa

You'd thank that coming in second would at least have merited an acknowledgment that it was a three-way race by the MSM. But instead they almost totally marginalized Edwards in their coverage.

Kucinich got marginalized out from the git go.

Edwards was next.

I suspect it's Obama's turn soon.

[99th_Monkey]

17. Edwards out, Obama soon to be? Just in time for "super Tues." w/ only "ONE candidate"

Hillary Clinton will be announced the "winner" in the daze before super tues.

[southerncrone]

5. As long as politicians can be bought & voting rigged,

we will not have anything else but what we have now.

They will wear different colored hats, but it will always be the same......Corporate 'Merika will rule our lives.

We are kidding ourselves. WE don't have a country anymore. THEY have a slave labor force.

Hold on, 'cuz the ride is going to get real bumpy soon. Our financial status is on life-support.

[Armstead]

11. To be honest, I think we deserve it

I'm feeling bitter tonight, so I'll hopefully feel differently tomorrow.

But if voters are so dumb and complacent thay they choose McPolitics over substance, then we probably deserve to continue to be led down the primrose path.

[puebloknot]

85. I'm in the same frame of mind. But our children don't deserve it!

All the rah-rah here about playing nice and supporting one of our sterling Democratic candidates -- and don't rattle anyone's cage by asking penetrating questions -- has me deeply disturbed. Some of the same "lockstep" mentality is at play here at DU as we criticize by the right-wingers, when we should be "in the streets," metaphorically speaking, holding the candidates to answer for more than hope and change. We're being very good Germans when we let the debates become meaningless blather, and when there is a Sunday school wagging of the finger here by frequent posters who admonish people not to say anything negative.

If there is no meaningful debate here at DU, we probably aren't going to find it elsewhere.

[ZinZen]

169. Remember the American voting population

voted for Bush part 2. Americans and the Dem party will have to learn and learn through another loss that choosing a corporate shill like Hillary will not fly in the General. But that's the Dem party's choice and it may cost them big time.

[ClericJohnPreston]

28. Viva la revolution

but with Corporate America having everything rigged for that possibility well in advance, it will be crushed before it starts.

[southerncrone]

35. Yes, that is my point.

What's a patriot to do?

[fooj]

73. NGU.

[truedelphi]

70. Is there room on your broom for an oracle?

I share your viewpoint, and feel sick much of the time over it. But facts be facts.

Those who count the votes, finance the elections and control the Media pretty much get to have their person win.

:banghead:

[southerncrone]

80. Sure, oracles are always welcome!

I wish we COULD fly away on my broom and leave behind this cesspool that our country has become.

[truedelphi]

133. Let me know when the broom leaves!

At this point I don't even care where we are going to. <as long as we avoid the Middle East!>

[bdamomma]

148. yea, slave labor is correct, that is the only way for them to control

people, and throwing scraps of $800 and $1600 checks to people how disrespectful and rude and telling everyone go shopping!!! What arrogance!!!

[patrice]

7. The justification is that WE are supposed to do our part to make things Change

once the new Democrat is in the WH. I agree with this and will do my part of our part, but I'm worried from past experience that we will be ignored ANYWAY, because the new pResident will have to provide quid pro quo to his/her backers. That will affect a whole bunch of things that will affect us, from legislation to all levels of appointees and beureaucratic hires. It will remain a very closed system, with its financiers at the gate.

[Armstead]

12. Partisan gridlock will return as an excuse

[patrice]

18. Exactly. Too bad folks can't see what's going on better. I want to embrace

SOME Obama supporters for all of their hope, but they're all high on that and oblivious to the realities and anyone who doesn't drink their brand of koolaid is the problem.

Edwards or Un-Committed ALL of the Way!

[JDPriestly]

10. Your post is the best one of the day.

[aquart]

13. If you didn't talk in talking points, you might be a happier person.

Try going with words someone didn't hand you. Ones you...understand.

[Armstead]

15. I understand exactly what I'm saying

Feel free to disagree. But at least acknowledge that people do see things differently than you do without repeating talking points.

[Yael]

23. Who pissed in your wheaties this morning?

Damn

[ClericJohnPreston]

52. A typical "aquart" response

Ironic because they are projecting their own inadequacies on the OP who went into great detail, in his words, to make his point!

[Yael]

74. I hear ya

[jgraz]

79. Lame n/t

[Kajsa]

132. What?

"Try going with words someone didn't hand you.Ones you...understand."

What an obnoxious, rude, and short sighted statement!

I saw nothing of the kind in the OP.

Who in the hell are you to trash it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

170. That's a very condescending response, aquart

If what Armstead says sounds familiar, it's because a lot of people feel this way, and if the Democrats don't wake up to this fact, they'll be going the way of the Whigs.

[OzarkDem]

14. DC Dems are not an opposition party

and I've not seen anything to indicate that Obama or Clinton will do anything differently than they do today in the Senate, which is nothing.

If Dems want the DLC running the WH and the Congress for the next 4 years, at least have the guts to defend your position.

Please don't pump sunshine up my skirt telling me "things will be different" w/ Obama or Clinton. They won't. They're bought and paid for and they'll govern no differently than they do now in the Senate.

Nothing will change, you can bank on it.

No impeachment
No investigation of Bush/Cheney/GOP crimes
No protection of the Constitution
No getting out of Iraq
No fixing the economy (see above)
No health care reform
No fixing the economy

They aren't going to do anything differently than they are today.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. You said it. The biggest difference between Hillary and Obama

is that Obama would be less effective in pushing the corporatist platform, because he doesn't have the DLC behind him.

I don't want the choice to be between an effective Democratic corporatist and an ineffictive Democratic corporatist.

[ClericJohnPreston]

53. BINGO! Well stated!

[Yael]

135. Not once the checks start rolling in....

[SammyWinstonJack]

122. If either even manages TO get elected.

:shrug: I am less hopeful every day now.

[INdemo]

164. So I take it you could vote for a Republican since there's no difference?

[Uben]

16. Don't feel too bad

This race has come down to the "first woman" vs "first black" president. JRE is being viewed as just another "white European male" candidate, although I think he has the best message of the three. I just hope whoever gets the nod will strongly consider him for a spot in the administration at some point.

I can sympathize with John a bit. My wife got breast cancer 5 yrs ago. My life changed in an instant. I concentrated on finding out as much as I could about the disease so I would know exactly what the doctors were saying when they explained her condition.
I quit my job. I wanted to spend every minute I could with her in case it turned out to be terminal.

That was five years ago. After a double mastectomy, a failed reconstruction, then another successful one, she is cancer free!
I never returned to work. We are financially secure for the rest of our lives, so we spend every day together, well almost.
We both do work for charitable causes.

Since Elizabeth's cancer is terminal, they should spend her remaining time however they both feel is best.

[bigbrother05]

49. That's exactly how the Corporate Media wants it

They can then yammer on about whether X played the racist/racial card or Y played the sexist/gender card. They won't have to address real issues. With JRE, they can only play the haircut/big house card so often before they would have to actually discuss what he stood for. Horseraces, fundraising, and either/or discussions are the only things the media will report, then it's back to missing white girls, Brittany, and OJ.

[Armstead]

50. Debate the package and "strategy" rather than anything of importance

[stickernation]

125. heartfelt congratulations to your wife and you

that is one of the most touching stories, thank God for your wife's recovery from cancer, a true modern day miracle.

i am thankful of such things during this trying time.

i also want to remind everyone of THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS.

if God wanted to pull the plug on the human species, many of us here would never have been born. basically we got out of that one by the skin of our teeth.

it would be interesting to read up a little on the transformation of Rome from a Republic to a Dictatorship and thence to Empire. I believe this is the history-repeating-itself script that Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush Sr. and Rice have been cackling over since day one, and * is the new Crassus.

for seven years I have been on the self-educational trip, the sidelines basically, while I have watched the * vision stretch across the skein of human karma. we have to turn on the light switch.

INFORMATION IS A BATTLE. Indeed, it feels like the Battle of Armageddon is already on in the info-sphere.

Good memes vs. evil memes. The Force and the Dark Side.

Jedi are always outnumbered. The corporate media are a tax on American conversation, just as oil profits are taxes, insurance profits are taxes, and the Federal Reserve imposes inflation-taxes. I am sick of being taxed to info-asphyxiation by the corporate media, and I swear to you that I will overturn it. I am also in possession of a business model and plan to do so - this Edwards blackout and Paraguay coverup is the final straw. MY BUSINESS PLAN OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO: DEMOLISH THE CORPORATE NEWS MEDIA. If we can steal share from them, we will go disruptive-innovation on their sorry asses. Air America will have nothing on us - we will target their audiences and pluck them from their info-addictions to the mass media.

The M$M destroyed my candidate, so I will destroy them, fair and square, using FREE ENTERPRISE. ha ha on them, they know not what they have done.

[Nay]

19. It IS depressing, and it's not just you. I wonder how bad it has to get

before anyone actually addresses the issues facing the country -- what exactly has to happen? Do all the goddam TVs have to be shut off for a year before the consumer trance is broken and politicians have the guts to talk about things that matter? What's the breaking point -- when no one can afford to gas up to go to work? When there is no paid work? When bands of homeless strip McMansions of their copper wiring? When? What will it take?

The Democrats ought to be willing to lose elections for 20 years and say out loud what is wrong with this country without any triangulation, calculation. They are acting like small, timid people, like toadies toadying. It isn't just depressing, it's disgusting.

And I'm depressed, too.

[Armstead]

22. I'm wondering that too

Things are getting so bad, you'd think there's be more of a clamor for some fundamental reform.

Instead we're drinking the Corporate Cool Aid yet again.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

172. Thanks to suburbanization, most Americans lack the kinds of

natural affinity groups and gathering places that are the norm in Europe and Asia. That's why the French and Italians can mount demonstrations of a million and hold general strikes. Two generations ago, Americans did those types of things, too.

[BushLiesDaily]

179. It helps that their health insurance

is not tied to their employment, but is universal single pay - They can demonstrate without fear of losing their health employment benefits.

People in this country demonstrate when they have nothing to lose - college students under threat of being drafted during Vietnam, for instance. No job, with parent's health insurance, not much to lose.

IMHO, that is...

[Yael]

27. Well, someone needs to send a memo to the democrats in NH and NV

Because they obviously aren't feeling the crunch and believe that the Washington Insider is the perfect response to the question of "Change".

[sojourner]

41. but Edwards (and Kucinich) ARE talking about things that matter. When will we listem?

[Armstead]

42. That's true and that's why I'm pissed off tonight

The fault Dear Brutus is not in our stars but in our selves.

[sojourner]

48. i know............with you there..........

[Zorra]

20. If I thought Sen. Clinton could easily win the general election, I would

not have a problem with her getting nominated. She's not my first or second choice, and after that, who cares anyway, as long as it's a Democrat that will definitely beat the republican challenger.

I'll vote for her, but I really don't have much faith that she can win the general election, and I truly fear that Democrats are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory by nominating the wrong candidate once again.

Imagine how demoralizing it will be for us to watch John McCain get sworn in as President in Jan. of '09.

[DutchLiberal]

24. Your candidate doesn't make much of a difference.

Edwards, the co-sponsor of the Iraq War Resolution, the senator who voted for the Patriot Act, and the man who made big money of hedge funds, is exactly what you fear: a candidate for the corporate elite.

Talk is cheap.

[Yael]

26. Edwards, the man whose ideas are framing the debate

on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Yep -- better we shut him up now.

[DutchLiberal]

31. Who said anything about shutting him up? I sure didn't.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[Yael]

34. You said he "doesn't make much of a difference"

I beg to differ...

[DutchLiberal]

39. He doesn't make much of a difference, indeed. How does that equal "we should shut him up"?

You can differ all you want. Why don't you adress what I touched upon in my orginal post?

[ClericJohnPreston]

54. You mean

that one sentence put down?

Is that what passes for argument nowadays among the DLC supported candidates?

Hillary is the shill for Corporatism she appears to be; just look at her roster of contributors. Obama , when he isn't putting his foot in his mouth and exposing who he really is ala "Reagan", is doing NOTHING in the Senate.

Both Hillary and Obama have co-opted Edwards platforms and change, parroting him in a way that WOULD be laughable, if it weren't so sad.

Edwards, as Yael said, is driving the platform in any Progressive direction!

And don't go DK on me; he has always been a weak sister when it came to speaking out against Corporatism. Moreover, he lent his delgates in Iowa to Obama, a Corporatist candidate. So much for his ethics!

[DutchLiberal]

59. 'One sentence puts him down'? I mentioned at least four different issues.

Co-sponsoring IWR. Voting for Patriot Act. Making money of hedge funds. Copying his so-called progressive platform from another candidate (Kucinich).

Kucinich a 'weak sister' in speaking out against corporatism? Have you been paying attention at all? He is the only one who didn't take any money from them, because he doesn't want to be owned by them if he gets into the White House, like Edwards, Obama and HRC.

Kucinich figured he wouldn't win in Iowa and he rather threw his support behind a candidate that didn't vote for, or co-sponsor, the IWR.

[harmonicon]

115. who should listen to your argument when you're either completely mis-informed or just a liar?

Kucinich has given no one his delegates. It's time for this vicious lie to be stopped. You are either out to smear the man or are just regurgitating the putrid bile you've been fed.

[Armstead]

30. Whether you like him or not....

Edwards is raising the key issue that should be driving the Democratic Party right now.

Instead, we are looking at "the economy" in the shallow terms of current short-term conditions, while ignoring the underlying decay that is causing them.

[DutchLiberal]

32. Kucinich is raising the key issues. And he has a (voting) record to back it up.

Edwards copied all of Kucinich's rhetoric, but unfortunately, his record doesn't match.

[Armstead]

37. Kucinich reflects my true views

Unfortunately he doesn't have the combination of qualities to survive as a presidential candidate in the current climate.

I believe Edwards is the real deal -- just not as staunch as DK.

Anyway, I don't view this all so much in personal terms. It's more symbolic, and the lemming-like drive to drown out true liberal positions is the real tragedy.

[DutchLiberal]

40. Edwards will say whatever it takes to get himself elected.

If tomorrow, a vast majority of the US population would favor bombing The Netherlands, Edwards would be the one shouting loudest he would push the button! He was a centrist DLC war hawk, and now suddenly he's a progressive anti-war populist? Suuuure....

[sojourner]

43. sick of hearing people lie............disagree with his policies (they are in PRINT) if you like but

stop slinging shit and calling names.

[DutchLiberal]

44. Why don't you just give arguments against my claims instead of raving and ranting?

At this point, it's you who is slinging the shit.

[sojourner]

51. then you won't have a problem reading this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4110346

[Armstead]

55. Thanks for that -- Edwards deserves more credit

Edwards had his ups and downs as a Senator. But for the most part, he has been consistent in his committment to the principles he is currently running on.

[DutchLiberal]

60. I have read this before. It doesn't mean anything.

Just because he has been voting right *some* of the time, doesn't mean he is a good, honest, progressive candidate.

[sojourner]

77. listen to his message. watch him answer questions. then if you feel that way, fine. but

smears and accusations about "character" do not address issues.

[DutchLiberal]

161. I HAVE listened to him, and I HAVE addressed the ISSUES.

You know what the thing is? Whenever I address those issues, Edwards-supporters always pretend I'm "smearing" their candidate and "personally attack" him. Why is it that Edwards-supporters can't see the difference between criticizing his voting record and using smears?

Is it a smear to say Edwards can't be trusted because he co-sponsored the Iraq War Resolution, because he voted for the Patriot Act, because he made money out of his involvement in hedge funds?

[sojourner]

186. it's an assumption to say he can't be trusted. it's labeling him, and that could be

taken as an attack on him personally. would be easier not to see opinions framed as attacks on character. provide the facts, as you did above and then people can make their own judgment about the character. (i find it difficult to trust obama for similar reasons to yours with Edwards - and i have HUGE problems with Hillary as I see her as far too opportunistic and close to the Bush family)

regarding Edwards, he has recanted his vote for the IWR. having voted for it there's only one other choice -- pretend it was the right thing to do. he admits it as a mistake. for me, that's a plus.

IMO there is no one living who doesn't make mistakes. try as you might you won't find such a person. i'll take someone who admits when he's made a mistake over someone who is "always right" any day. current administration is one example.

of course you are entitled to hold your criteria as high as you like. but Kucinich is the only man running who hasn't made mistakes with regard issues like the war, the patriot act, and other issues.

i don't know enough about hedge funds to judge Edwards on that. i don't hold it against him. that's my choice. i am judging his character on what he has done with his life -- after his internship for a corporate law firm he went on to become an attorney representing those injured by big corporations, and on his commitment to making a change in america. his message hasn't changed since he first came out for 04.

it's meaningful to me that he LEFT the senate and is trying to make a difference from OUTSIDE the establishment. i believe it's about more than ambition for him.

sorry that so much of the "discourse" here lately has been just plain nasty. and i apologize if i contributed to that. thanks for responding as you did.

[DutchLiberal]

198. Thank you for your reply.

I don't feel the urge to add "in my opinion" after every statement I make about a candidate. This is a discussion forum, and it seems to me it's obvious, most of the time, when someone is stating facts and when someone is giving an opinion. And you can mix the two of them by telling *why* you feel a certain way about a certain candidate. That's what I did when I talked about Edwards.

Yes, you're right: nobody is perfect, nobody is blameless, everybody makes mistakes. Of course Dennis Kucinich also made mistakes. I know he's for abortion rights now, but he used to be strongly against it. Sometimes, people can come around and realize they made a mistake. It's just that Edwards has made much more mistakes. Also, Kucinich has always been a progressive on all other issues, even when he opposed abortion rights. That's why his turn on abortion seems believable to me. Edwards never was a progressive (at least not in my eyes) until recently and he turned around on every issue, which makes his turn seems suspicious, to me.

I agree with you it's better to have a candidate who made mistakes and apologized for them and who has learned from them. I don't recall HRC ever apologized for her IWR-vote. Did she?

[Frosty1]

107. Since you are not even an American or an eligible voter

why don't you shut the f*ck up. Your opinion is worthless.

[f the letter]

147. Er, very insightful comment

A citizen of any country except the united states has nothing but worthless opinions.. way to go.

And it's not like he's not backing up his opinion. It is pretty hard to argue that Edwards is a progressive and still keep an eye on his voting record. He's an excellent start and much better than the other two candidates we are allowed to talk about, but definitely not a flat-out progressive.

By the way, i'm an eligible voter and an American. Hope that doesn't hurt your position

[DutchLiberal]

162. Bill? Bill O'Reilly? Is that you?

[stickernation]

134. very interesting perspective...

...and it's great to see Europeans taking an interest in US Politics.

My gut feeling is that Edwards found out about a conspiracy afoot while he was a Senator. He is abreacting quite publicly to what he found out - like "whoa guys, I never signed up for this!" He is campaigning in a parallel way as was Bob Graham in 2004 - Bob Graham who knew about the 9-11 conspiracy and almost spilled the beans, in fact ran for President on a campaign of potentially spilling the beans. Edwards knows what * and Cheney are REALLY up to and is campaigning his heart out because... he plans to spill the beans.

It goes far beyond that. You would not imagine the ease with which he converses and just hangs out with union folks, veterans, the poor. Obama's attitude towards the war is "i didn't start it" but he is hardly disowning it. Edwards is ABSOLUTELY ANGRY about it, and his policy proclamations have stated as much, in terms with which I relate (quick sample: "I will end this MESS OF A WAR IN IRAQ"). If you helped start a war, wouldn't you want the chance to try and undo it? Obama seems perfectly willing to continue the war, in fact quite comfortable with it - a permanent war, 1984-style, we'll always be there.

The most contradictory of Obama supporters bring up the Iraq War Resolution vote as a kind of touchstone. Despite all the obvious positions Obama has taken that support militarism and nationalism, Obama supporters insist that "he didn't make a mistake that time" despite his continual lockstep behind funding the war. Their nastiness regarding the Edwards IWR vote makes me think they just don't care about Obama's own hypocrisy, including STATEMENTS THAT SAY "GO FOR IT" ABOUT MISSILING IRAN.

Once again, Edwards is consistently trending LEFT, and OBAMA is consistently trending RIGHT. I believe in a human being's capacity to learn and change over time. So what is it that OBAMA is learning? I think what he is learning is "shut up and trust your handlers". Who are lobbyists and god knows who else.

OBAMA could CLEAR THIS UP SO FAST with a speech or two. It won't happen. Clinton and Obama are both running ugly campaigns to this American's perspective, and Edwards is running one that involves him hitting touchstone after touchstone of core Progressive belief. You feel he is not "honest" because of his record from four years to ten years ago. To me that is ridiculous - in 2002, 99% of Americans would plug their ears and loudly shout you down if you expressed doubt about the 9-11 official story. Today, we have tons of neat media that expresses a more discerning viewpoint of that conspiracy, but when Edwards was Senator... even my DAD, a liberal to the CORE, i will never forget him SCREAMING at me, "you sound crazy, don't say crazy things" in the car. Don't you think people are finding out more and more? Don't you think their reactions will be softer and more considered today? I do, and I believe that Edwards' transformation since the Senate has brought him to the point of feeling a passionate anger at not merely the status quo, but at how he was misled deliberately by planted and false intelligence into signing his name to the devastation. I see no similar guilt or strategic-intent-to-leave out of OBAMA. Until I hear it, I file him under PHONY.

The deception is falling apart. It is fraying, naturally, and also due to the directed efforts of people who have held to this demand for the truth about 9-11 and everything else. Edwards may not have been such a seeker back in 2002, but he darn sure sounds like one of us today. He is bringing up points about the Evil America that suggest that he is PERSONALLY DISGUSTED WITH THE TYRANNY THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING. Whether you trust John Edwards or not, ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS:

* WHY are the oil companies rolling around in profits while we're supposedly having all this turmoil?
* WHY are they still going to have our troops refereeing the Rwanda 2.0 they're building in Iraq?
* WHY is OBAMA genuflecting to REAGAN ?!

Come on Dutch Liberal, let's have it out. Is your "mistrust" of Edwards going to blind you to these problems he's bringing up? Or can you as a human being understand that merely BRINGING THESE QUESTIONS UP IN PUBLIC IS AN IMMEASURABLE CONTRIBUTION TO HUMANITY'S REPUTATION FOR JUSTICE-BASED BRAVERY ?!?

[DutchLiberal]

166. First, let me thank you for your reply.

As you might have seen, most people start yelling and accusing and calling names whenever their candidate gets criticized. I'm glad you're not one of them.

I'm a little ticked off by the fact that Edwards is championed by the left as the true progressive candidate who will change everything and the one who will 'save' America.

Edwards voted for the IWR and for the Patriot Act. Which progressive in his right mind would do that? You mention the circumstances in which it happened, not too long after 9/11, within that paranoid political climate. That's a good point. But then, why were other Democrats not afraid to vote against both? Other Democrats resisted the pressure and were not afraid to do the right thing. So the question is: was John Edwards pressured into the 'yes'-vote? Or was he calculating and did he hope his 'yes'-vote would play out well later on in his career? Or was the simply deluded by George Bush? None of the three options would appeal to me to vote for this guy.

You said Edwards has changed over the last years. That change seems very opportunistic to me. You, for example, said Edwards, contrary to Barack Obama, wants to end the war in Iraq. But is it not correct he said in a recent debate he may not pull out all of the troops until 2013? I heard Dennis Kucinich say he would close down all the bases and give control over the Iraqi oil back to the Iraqi people. I haven't heard Edwards say something like that. Why is that?

And why doesn't Edwards stand for a not-for-profit health care system? In his plan, the insurance companies will still have a seat at the table. They will not change the way they work voluntarily. Never. Politicians have to make sure health care benefits the people who need it, not the insurance companies. How is Edwards going to do that when he still lets the very same companies have this big influence?

Here is my theory, but you probably will not agree: John Edwards was a centrist pro-war DLC corporate candidate back in 2004, when he ran with John Kerry. We all know how that ended. Since then, he has learned that people all over the US are longing for a radical different message. So he decides to change his image, not so much his plans, and he lifts all his talking points for Kucinich's speeches. And he gets popular with the progressive movement.

I haven't heard Edwards promise to repeal the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. I haven't heard Edwards promise to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as possible.

I don't believe Edwards is a champion for the working class, let alone the poor. I don't think he will give the country the change it so desperately needs. I do think he is better than HRC. I don't know if he's better than Obama. Edwards prides himself on not taking corporate money, like Obama, but we both know that is not true, right? Obama may not have voted for the IWR, but that's only because he wasn't in a position to vote at that time. And he did vote to keep funding the war, like Edwards. Obama voted for the Patriot Act, like Edwards. Maybe they're much alike after all?

But at least Edwards didn't have a McClurkin-moment. Point for Edwards. :)

[unc70]

188. No, it is not correct and neither are your arguments.

The debate you referenced wrt Edwards not withdrawing troops by 2013 was mis-reported by the media (beginning with AP). He withdraws all troops in first year with the exception of a larger-than-normal contingent of Marines guarding the embassy (maybe up to 2-3k). No combat, no special ops, no permanent bases, no anti-terrorism.

If you are actually interested in this, my journal has entries were in a large thread at that time (linked) where eventually I refuted every attempt to mislead everyone on the candidates positions on Iraq. You really need to read Obama and Clinton rally closely.

Why all your effort to discredit Edwards with false claims asserted with such certitude?

[DutchLiberal]

199. You don't have to overreact.

Why all your effort to discredit Edwards with false claims asserted with such certitude?

You make it sound like it's my lifework, or that I dedicate all my posts to discrediting Edwards ("all your effort") and that is not true. "False claims" is also an overstatement. Where are your counterarguments for all the other claims I made?

So I was wrong about one thing. If you say it was misreported by the media, I want to believe you. After all, it wouldn't be the first time a Democratic candidate gets misrepresented by the MSM. If I'm wrong, I admit it.

But now about the rest of my claims...

[unc70]

81. Since you are in Europe, what source convinced you of this about Edwards?

Serious question that you can help me understand. I see this position repeated around the net quite often and am at a loss to explain why. Since you have this opinion, too, you have fewer reliable sources than would most in the US. Did you come to your opinion on Edwards through DU, some news articles, opinion pieces, blogs, or something else?

What can make you at a great distance believe that he will say anything, while I just down the street am certain of the exact opposite? Since you don't believe him, do you believe any of the candidates, Dem or Repub? Why them?

[LandOLincoln]

91. Have you forgotten Russ Feingold?--although in fact

he merely confirmed what a lot of us have suspected all along.

[unc70]

150. I asked specifically because they were in Europe

But since you jumped in, why "had you suspected this all along"?

That meme was first pushed by the Jesse Helms machine in NC ten years ago when Edwards beat their incumbent. They didn't stop attacking him after that election, they keep repeating and repeating because the next campaign starts immediately. A longer version of this is "Edwards is nothing more than a smooth-talking pretty-boy trial lawyer who will say and do anything to win frivolous lawsuits against your doctors, making hard-working people like you pay more when you get sick. What a phony!"

Let me translate this into NC politics:
"smooth-talking" trying to take advantage of you, untrustworthy, better educated than you
"pretty-boy" effeminate, weak, maybe gay (note each word alone is a put-down)
"trial lawyer" a group the Repubs attack regularly for causing all types of evil
"frivolous" unjustified, undeserving, something for nothing from those who earned it
"people like you" white

There are related attacks about driving up malpractice insurance causing a doctor shortage (caused more by problems attracting doctors to poor rural counties), Edwards preying on his clients, various racist code words to describe them as almost welfare queens, the nouveau riche Edwardses being bad neighbors, portraying Elizabeth as rude, unfriendly snob, unwilling to even speak to them (even the NYTs failed trying to push this one). BTW did you here about that mansion of theirs?

Now why should you believe him and why do I? First, I share much of the cultural, educational, and moral background and tradition with him, I know various people in NC very familiar with his life and practice, and there is incredible consistency and detail whether debate, speech, position papers, or web site. When he says all troops out of Iraq except 2-3k guarding embassy, then that is it. You have to listen closely and question more closely Obama and Clinton before you can discover that they leave significant numbers of troops and continue combat operations in the name of "anti-terrorism".

John and Elizabeth Edwards are in tradition of alumni of The University of North Carolina, including Frank Porter Graham, Paul Wellstone, Bill Fridya, Terry Sanford. (If you never heard of them, you really should Google them.) We also produce people like my classmate Lewis Black who are even more direct when sharing their opinions.

The motto of the State of NC is "Esse quam videri" (to be, rather than to seem). "Phony" is a terrible slur. Finally, in the offical toast of the State are the following line:

"Where the weak grow strong and the strong grow great"

That really is our goal. Would you believe Edwards on education if you knew that the UNC Alumni with the Carolina Covenant makes it possible for students from low income (3 x poverty) will not have any student loans when they graduate?

[DutchLiberal]

167. Since the Internet, geographical distance is not an issue anymore.

At least, I thought, but you're throwing that red herring around anyway.

What makes you think I have fewer reliable sources than do you? You Democrats always complain about American MSM, but *now* you all of a sudden have more reliable sources? You're on the Internet, right? (And you are on DU.) Well, that answers your question where I get my information.

The 'argument' that you know better because you live nearby, is in itself bullshit. Is the 26% of Americans who still support Bush more informed than me? Just because they live in the US?

[unc70]

189. I don't just live nearby. direct knowledge for much

I did not link to sources in my earlier post because either I personally am the source or a close family member or friend is the source. Chapel Hill is a small town and North Carolina a relatively small state. Elizabeth Edwards was a year behind be in college and I knew, though not well, her father back then. I have talked at length with John's parents and some of their neighbors, know one of the men who rescued the girl sucked into the pool drain, and at least acquainted with those others mentioned. I knew Paul Wellstone from college, Dr. Frank in his retirement meeting small groups of students, still see the Fridays.



What I was describing is really hard to get through the internet, even with everything at DU. That is why I asked the initial question. Maybe you have a pipeline to NC and have family living here for the last forty years or so.

I believe that understanding the populist/progressive heritage of the University and the Helms/RW attacks against Edwards using code words, would be helpful for others. Tonight I was watching part of the new documentary on Jesse Helms, "Senator No", and was struck by how much of the RW rhetoric originated in the Helms TV attacks on Chapel Hill, the University, and all of there, and how he used them in the Senate to define the New Right, and how in 1976 he saved the political career of Reagan, and how the Helms organization redefined political campaigns, fund raising, and media and message control supported by incessant attacks on those commie pinko commies in Chapel Hill.

I don't know if this documentary/film is available yet at the WUNC-TV web site, but if it is everyone at DU needs to watch it. Boy it still pisses me off watching this, too agitated to sleep. Obama and every single one of his supporters needs to watch this before they say anything further about the hope/optimism of Reagan.

One of the first things Helms/Reagan did was to drastically cut food stamps using the stereotypes of black welfare queens using food stamps to by vodka.

When he next ran for re-election, Helms filibustered the MLK holiday with claims of King's communist associates, used racists, and began the modern focus on evangelicals.

[Ninga]

105. I know DK. I live in NE Ohio. DK talks a good game, and has not been able to

demonstrate leadership skills in the Congress. DK supports Ohio 14th Cong. District Congressman Steve LaTourette, calls him a close friend (who is a GOP Rep. and cast the deciding vote for CAFTA) and will not support any Dem who opposes LaTourette.

For every "good vote" "good position" Dennis gives with one hand, he takes away with his other hand, with his behind the scene shenanigans and harmful GOP


DK may look good to his supporters outside of Ohio, but inside of Ohio, we know him to be a person who does not do the right thing when he thinks people aren't watching.

[Maat]

128. I SO agree, Armstead ...

the real tragedy is "lemming-like drive to drown out true liberal positions."

We need to honor Dr. King, and fight non-violently for peace and social justice. The French take to the streets when something bothers them - why don't we?

[Yael]

25. "Another Damn Issue-Free General Election in which Big Problems will be met with Small Answers"

Beautiful. Well stated.

I echo you -- and could have written this myself, albeit not as succinct.

You are not alone.

On your comments re: Bloomberg -- pair Clinton against Bloomberg AND a McCain/Lieberman ticket and it will be "4 more years!!!" of the SSDD.

[Tulkas]

29. Centrist Stranglehold !?!?

WTF are you talking about?

This country is so divided by the two extremes that centrists can't get anything done.

Even Bloomberg is thinking about running because there is such a huge gap in the middle that he could win by playing the centrist card.

Hillary isn't a centrist, she has always been on the far left, she just started voting the wrong way on things like Wars and Free Speech to run for president.

[Armstead]

33. "Centrist" is not the same as moderate

The "extremes" that you seem to think have so much power is just an illusion.

The gap in the middle exists because the DLC "centrists" pushed moderate liberalism out of the Democratic Party, and marginalize those politicians who are actually liberal.

That is why people like Ted Kennedy, or John Edwards are branded as "too far left" rather than the moderate liberals that they actually are.

[amandabeech]

83. Tulkin thinks that he is a leftist moderate,

but he writes, albeit politely, in right-wing code. I've tried to converse with him, but it is useless.

[Yael]

36. Hillary + Far Left

That just doesn't even compute.

[HughBeaumont]

62. Are these "Far Left" positions?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/538674.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/593175.cms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs
Hillary pushes for more h1-b visas and outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 2)

Do "far leftists" do business with Indian Outsourcing corporations, support NAFTA, vote for shitty trade agreements such as the Peru deal and think there are "positives to outsourcing"?

Do "far leftists" vote for the IWR AND the Kyl/LIEberman Bill?

Do "far leftists" take tons of payola from Big Insurance to shy away from much-needed universal health care in this country for ten years?

Do "far leftists" agree with the statement "National Security is more important than civil rights", the complete opposite of what Ben Franklin taught us way back in the 18th Century?

"Far left", my 1/4 Italian ASS. Hillary and "far left" aren't in the same light year. Sell that talking point to the Rushbots.

[tomp]

103. that is just SO ignorant.

hillary is MUCH coser to far right than far left.

[harmonicon]

116. far left?

Do you know what the far left is? In most countries the Democratic party would be considered a centrist/right party, with Clinton being slightly on the right within that. This country could use a real left wing party. Sure, some Democrats are a bit left of center (Kucinich, Conyers), but they do not come close to making the Democratic party leftists. We're really fucked when we think the center is between centrist/right and fascists.

[jenmarie]

38. As long as we have

a Corporate owned and operated press, nothing's going to change. This election is just another glaring example of how fucked we are.

Support alt. media orgs, and orgs working to FREE OUR PRESS. They need our help to grow.

We Clarkies saw them do the same thing to Clark in '03/'04. Once he mentioned the harm of having a consolidated press, that was it. He was essentially blacked out. They've done the same to Edwards. They've chosen our candidates. They will choose our nominee. They will choose our president. Again.

The Real News

FreePress.net

[Tweed]

45. Which wing? The wing that voted us into Iraq?

Pretty sure that wing took a HUGE loss today.

[stravu9]

46. I Know, I Feel SICK!

But I WIll NOT GO GENTLE INTO THE GOODNIGHT!!

[VolcanoJen]

47. I'm with you, babe.

I'm seriously feeling a little sick.

:hug: Armstead :hug:

[creeksneakers2]

56. I don't see stupid beyond belief

We have two great Democratic candidates in the lead. Either one could win.

Corporations are always going to be there. We need them. The point is to keep them under control and deal with them. Hillary will do that.

[ClericJohnPreston]

57. Political naivete beyond belief

To believe that anyone who takes corporate money isn't owned by Corporations. If you hadn't seen it with Bushco for 7 years, I could forgive you; but, willing ignorance means we deserve what we will get with Hillary Shillery or Repub-lite Obama.

[creeksneakers2]

101. I have a different view of naivete

I think that its naive to believe that everybody is a crook and liar except one guy, who is some kind of saint who will save us all. There are no saints, only fairy tales about them. Its naive to believe the world is going to fundamentally change because of one guy, even if that guy becomes president.

America isn't that bad. When Democrats are in office we have a good balance that keeps the positive aspects of corporate America while curbing the excesses. The items like free trade that are attributed to corruption are actually good policy. The alternative to free trade is disaster. Even Edwards says he'll keep NAFTA, just adjust it. Go to Nancy Pelosi's website and read the list of bills passed by this House of Representatives. Its far from corporate friendly.

People who believe in a black and white, all good or all evil world are susceptible to the pitch that only one person is on their side. Bill O'Reilly claims Washington is full of corruption but he's a lone brave knight challenging it all by telling the truth. Rush Limbaugh has the same story. So does John Edwards. So do many other politicians. The alleged evil they confront is each other. The world view that everybody is a crook but them serves their own self promotion. That's why they pitch it. Experience teaches me that believing these self described heroes is naive. They are the ones that lie. The alleged danger they all say they face "for telling the truth" is a hoax. If I ever see a talk show host say "The official version of events is almost always true" I'll think that guy must have some balls.

The wiser world view sees the good and the bad where they are. There are few saints or devils but many people with different views and interests.
The reality is that we need corporations. The reality is that even the most anti-corporate leader is going to have to work with corporations to accomplish his goals. The reality is that it takes money to win elections and the money has to come from somewhere. Reality is that taking a donation doesn't mean someone is bought.

Reality is far better than its reputation. Don't be trapped into thinking that you'll be naive if you don't believe the worst.

[Armstead]

102. I have a different view of naivete -- We've been succumbing to it for 30 years

Yes we need corporations. But there need to be checks and balances. And social goals are as important -- more important -- than the profit motive. That balance has been totally lost, and it has been hastened in the political/governmental sphere by both the GOP AND the Corporatist DLC Centrist Democrats, who have colluded with the elites to create a phony new definition of "center" which is actually far to the right.

I can remember the exact tipping point in the latter 1970's early 1980's when America NAIVELY succumbed to the destructive mantra being pushed by Corporate CONservatives.

"Social goals are now dead. The Market rules everything. You need us to get mean to save America. We live in a global economy now. So in order for America to stay competitive we have to slash your wages, fire you, pay CEO's massive salaries, allow monopolistic mergers, focus exclusively on the bottom line no matter the social impacts....."

Related lies were that corporate CEO's were demi-Gods, Business Always Knows Best, preservation of the middle class is a luxury, etc.

[Armstead]

58. Clintonism is too corporate friendly

One does not have to be Anti-corporate to recognize that they have goone way over the line in many ways.

They have been allowed to distort the economy and screw the democratic process in part because Clintonism treated them with kid gloves, and Hillary will continue that tradition.

[HughBeaumont]

63. Oh my God.

Hillary will end unbridled corporatism.

:spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray:

SHIT the bed, because I've heard it ALL now.

As I've illustrated above, Hillary is hardly the friend of American labor she claims to be.

When corporations say "jump", Hillary will say "how high and through how many hoops?"

[antigop]

66. Pretty amazing, isn't it, Hugh? n/t

[HughBeaumont]

68. I was thinking "vomitous", but that covers it also.

[HughBeaumont]

144. Aaaaaaaaaaaand I just dropped said poster in the Red X Toilet.

After the free-trade-supporting screed above, that's just utter ignorance typical of some HRC supporters. Free Trade is the reason wealth inequality has risen up to a hundred-fold since the mid-80s. Free trade, especially NAFTA, has destroyed the tax bases, environments and earning power of the lower classes of ALL nations involved while lining corporate coffers with more cash that they don't need. This has been proven in many articles since NAFTA was signed.

FAIR trade would include labor protections and safety regulations for foreign workers, something that doesn't exist under the unbridled capitalist model now. FAIR trade would include corporate regulations of some sort and eliminate corporate personhood. FAIR trade would have to include a better plan for re-entering displaced workers into equivalent wages at equivalent careers. Maybe FAIR trade should also include provisos that no worker should have to fend for their damned selves when they're axed through no fault or choice of their own, but because they simply weren't cheap enough.

All free trade does is plunge the middle classes of ALL nations to the bottom of the well, especially ours. Indian wages are already rising, leaving corporations to look for even cheaper nations. Even with the wage increase, it isn't like they live in astounding conditions. Their infrastructure and pollution problems still exist, as does the overcrowding and outdated utilities.

A strong economy is supposed to accommodate EVERYBODY at a liveable wage, not just the heavily degreed and privileged.

Free trade is a moldy bill of Reaganite goods that benefits the CAPITAL of the country, not the labor. Retraining is a crock when you don't even know what you're re-training for, nor do you know that the career you choose isn't going to follow it's predecessor offshore or be subject to the wage-ravaging phenomenon spawned from . .. er. . . "competitiveness".

Free Trade as it exists now should NOT be a model that Democrats should throw their support behind. You want to line up behind Welchian bullshit business methods where the "invisible hand" crushes the untermensch and it's simply "accepted"; do it on the other side of the fence, NOT mine.

[bvar22]

119. Didn't you hear?

Hillary is also "The Goddess of Peace"!

I shit you not. That is a DIRECT QUOTE from a Hillary supporter on DU.

[HughBeaumont]

140. I've seen the "Goddess of Peace" quote.

Someone should compile a list of heroic Hillraiser quotes such as that.

I wasn't aware "peace goddesses" believed and supported the worst president this country's ever been held hostage by regarding his Reagan-redux "Kill The Bastards" foreign policy.

[tomp]

104. "winning" does NOT equal "great"

someone is going to win but it won't be the american people.

and, yes, stupidity is a factor, although that should be obvious.

[sellitman]

111. What are you smoking?

Hillary has taken more corporate money than anyone else running. Are you really that nieve?

[creeksneakers2]

130. See post #101

And technically, corporations can't make donations.

[bvar22]

154. And "technically",

Americans who Work for a Living won't really be getting screwed by a BIG CORPORATE DICK, but overall, the outcome is the same.

Can you really say "Corporations don't donate to candidates" with a straight face?

[creeksneakers2]

156. Yeah. They can't donate

Individuals who work for corporations can donate. They donate to Edwards too. Not as many donate to Edwards because he's a loser. If Edwards could get more money from them he'd take it in a hot minute. Look on the donation tracking site. Edwards got money from all kinds of corporate people.

How are you getting screwed? If corporations make out so well, start one and use the barrels of cash you bring in to promote John Edwards.

[MonkeyFunk]

61. That your candidate lost doesn't indicate the end of the Republic

it just means your candidate wasn't as popular as another one.

[northzax]

71. yeah, who let people vote, anyway

the more enlightened of us should just get together and pick someone. People can't be trusted to save their country.

[Armstead]

100. I wish that were all it is

My feelings are not based on any one candidate, but on the way the whole election seems to be going from an actual change election to one in which the same old phony divisions will replace real diversity on issues and values.

[Phoonzang]

64. McCain will win the Repug nomination

and he'll crush Clinton. We'll have another 8 years of Republican rule and it looks like no one is willing to stop it. Or try something DIFFERENT for once. Ug...whatever. I'm moving to Canada.

[antigop]

65. I hear ya, Armstead. I hear ya. n/t

[Horse with no Name]

67. I'm bitter too

I turned on MSNBC...saw Clinton won...clicked it off.
It's a loser ticket...no matter how you slice it.
All those great Independents and Republicans who will cross over and vote for Obama or Hillary will definitely go to a Bloomberg ticket.
No doubt about it.

[fadedrose]

69. More depressed than you

I'm in Michigan. If you think only the republicans have and will screw us, then you're just kidding yourself. Our Dems do the same. My governor and senators ran over us with a Sherman tank and endorsed HRC. Through some kind of chicanery, Edwards and Obama weren't on our ballot, but HRC was, and so was Kucinich. They knew they were dumping Kucinich soon anyway, why not have him on the ballot.

Why are they so desperate to gain the presidency. They had it once and screwed up a good bit of it. I am pessimistic about the future no matter if HRC or a republican wins.

[Triana]

72. Depressing indeed. WTF? K & R (n/t)

[BenDavid]

75. Hold on there a moment....Let me prescribe you some Xanax

you know most of later part of this week in here was from the obama folk how he was going to win nevada. This actually began last weekebnd when word leaked the culinary union and 60,000 strong was going with obama...win nevada.....then obama stepped in a big pile by invoking reagan, and obama folks spent two days trying to tell the rest of us obama did not mean this or did not mean that and said the democrats had no ideas in the last 10 to 15 years.....oh my my that stung.....and it became clear that reagan most knew was a racist tried to point this out but nooooooooooooooo reagan was an inspiration......when we discuss what reagan did for the blacks and latinos there is no there there......

Ronald Reagan appears determined to go down in history as a President who sought actively to set back the cause of civil rights. How else can one read his veto of the four-year, bipartisan effort to restore the reach of antidiscrimination laws narrowed by a Supreme Court ruling? Congress appears to have the votes to override the veto. Decency argues for doing so, without delay. <…>

The Administration has consistently pursued a disruptive policy on civil rights, from its attempt to give tax exemptions to racially discriminatory Bob Jones University to its efforts to weaken the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. …

Yes, President Ronald Reagan fought the IRS denial of tax exemption to the racist Bob Jones University. President Reagan also:

introduced an amendment to the Voting Rights Act would require evidence of intent to discriminate and thus weaken the act;
expressed concern over the cost of honoring Martin Luther King with a national holiday (but signed the law because Congress seemed “bent” on it);
launched his 1980 election campaign with endorsements of “states rights” in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a city famous for the murder of three civil rights workers; and
joined Barry Goldwater in opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Now we shall see how obama disparaged and discounted President Clinton,and now since the economy is the hot topic these days, let’s just look at what President Clinton did for minorities in terms of economic gains — even though Obama dismisses those achievements. SHALL WE? UH HUH

Unemployment Rate for African Americans and Hispanics Remains Historically Low. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the Hispanic unemployment rate has dropped from 11.3 percent in January 1993 to a record low of 5.8 percent in March 1999. The unemployment rate for African Americans has fallen from 14.1 percent in January 1993 to 8.1 percent in March 1999–one of the lowest levels on record for African Americans.

Here are additional economic accomplishments of the Clinton/Gore administration — as of 1999 (during the administration’s second term) — that also had a direct positive effect for minorities:

18.2 Million New Jobs. …
Unemployment at 4.2 Percent in March …
Highest Share of New Jobs in Private Sector in 50 Years. Since the President and Vice President took office, the private sector has added 16.7 million new jobs–with 2.4 million jobs added in the past year. Since 1993, 92 percent of the 18.2 million new jobs have been in the private sector–the highest percentage in 50 years.
Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Two Decades. Last month, average hourly earnings increased 0.2 percent. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, real wages have risen 6.1 percent–compared to declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush Administrations. After adjusting for inflation, wages have increased almost 2.7 percent in 1998–the fastest real wage growth in more than two decades and the third year in a row–the longest sustained growth since the early 1970s.
Construction Jobs Are Coming Back. …
Manufacturing Jobs Have Increased. After losing 2.1 million manufacturing jobs between 1981 and 1992, the economy has created 350,000 new manufacturing jobs since 1993. After losing 46,000 jobs in the auto industry during the Bush Administration, the United States has 147,000 new auto industry jobs under the Clinton-Gore Administration.
Inflation Rate Is the Lowest Since the 1950s. …
President Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, “which passed Congress without a single Republican vote.”

It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers,<35> while cutting taxes for 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses.<36> Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years, through the implementation of spending restraints.


Listen up, Mr. Obama. If you think that President Clinton accomplished those amazing turnarounds for the economy and for minorities by singing “Kumbayah” with Republicans, you’ve just shown how naive you are.And take to heart my next statement:

And you’ve exposed how uninformed you are about the brutal history of U.S. politics where every progressive step is spattered with the blood, sweat and tears of all who fought so hard for those gains.

Or as John Lewis said, you got to have more then a good speech.....

[saracat]

82. WTF are you talking about? Do you have any idea what the OP was

talking about? The OP isn't talking about Obama! Or Clinton.And frankly both those choices just suck. Almost equally badly.

[JTFrog]

87. Just another excuse to bloviate. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

76. I'm right there with you, Armstead...

[ShadowLiberal]

78. I agree, the antiHillary vote needs to unite around one candidate NOW to stop Hillary

I agree with you that the party is making the wrong decision in who we're nominating. I swear, we're snatching defeat from the jaws of victory because we're too overconfident this election that it's in the bag, that it's causing people to not worry at all about people being unelectable that they vote for.

I mean look at who our top tier was, we had Edwards, who was really working hard to appeal to the poor, and is an awesome debater. He appeals to a lot of people according to the polls.

We have Obama, who the polls are showing is capable of uniting the country behind a progressive agenda, he's more liberal then Hillary, and yet he's attracting the nondemocrat votes in the primary. He could not only help us unite as a country, but get more democrats elected in congress to push through a liberal agenda.

Then we have Hillary, the polls consistently show her as by far the weakest general election candidate, and the most unelectable. The polls show that about the only group that likes her are democrats (and heck, even the most liberal democrats don't like her), and yet we're still just going to give her the nomination. I mean nominating her is like us sending a bunch of jets to take out an enemy somewhere, but then saying to the enemy "hey guys we got a huge fleet of planes coming after you, but they have a huge weakness, do this and you'll destroy most of fleet".

Worse yet, I've read articles about how you have to brand yourself something appealing in order to win general elections. Well look at what branding we have, Obama brands himself the candidate of hope and change. McCain brands himself as the maverick willing to go against his party for what he thinks is the good of the country. But what does Hillary have for a brand? Whatever the polls say is the most appealing brand of the day, I mean just look at the 15+ campaign slogans she once used but then abandoned, she had a ton of them focusing on her experience, and change by bringing things back to how they were in the 1990's, and now that she gets beaten by Obama in Iowa her new and current slogan is "35 years of change". (speaking of which where the heck does 35 years come from anyway? I mean she's only been in the senate for 7 years, and the white house for 8, and then married to Bill when he was governor for 8 years, that's still not enough for 35 years). Kerry ran without much of a brand, so the GOP branded him a flip flopper for us.

I'm pissed off by the results in both states as well, I now fear that it's inevitable that we'll have to stomache 8 more years of neocon rule under McCain.

[Iceburg]

88. Welcome to DU /nt

[harmonicon]

118. If we start voting against candidates, instead of for candidates, we're fucked

that's not how our democracy works, and trying to pretend that it does just gets us deeper into the shit heap.

[moondust]

84. George, Bill, George, Hillary, Jeb, Chelsea...

Noelle?

:wtf:

Wake me when it's over.

Oh wait...my lifespan won't be that long...

[Avalux]

86. I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling this way. Thanks for your post.

Maybe some day people will wake up. By then it may be too late. :(

[Skittles]

89. I hear you

I am very disgusted not only with Americans in general but too many DUers

[eridani]

90. Exactly my feelings.

And now for a lot more really stupid bandwaggoneering.

[TheWatcher]

92. "Are we going to continue to be driven by the politics of nostalgia for a decade in which the

Democrats presided over the Selling of America?"

Sadly, grievingly, YES.

That's exactly what we are going to do.

And you and I will watch in horror this November as it takes place.

Perhaps things have to get as bad as they can possibly get before they can get better. But the way we are going, eventually, America can and will fail. Economically, she is well on her way to the bottom, much like that famous ship in the Northern Atlantic almost 100 years ago.

To quoth the Dapper Thomas Andrews in Titanic's final hours, "She is made of iron, sir. I assure you, she can. And she *will*. It is a mathematical certainty."

The only thing a Hillary Presidency will assure is that it happens a little slower.

If McCain gets elected, the country is finished in the here and now.

It depends on which movie you'd like to see.

A grinding, suspenseful Drama, or a balls to the wall Armageddon Action flick.

In the end, although box office returns will be high, there won't be a Happy Hollywood Ending.

[NoBorders]

93. I don't know people are thinking

Maybe it is nostolgia, but we seem to be picking the least electable candidate.

[Vinca]

95. Grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory . . . again. nt

[glowing]

94. I think Obama is ready to get out.. but can't as long as John is in..

most Obama people would switch to John than Clinton.. and then there would be a race.. He's in there to pull votes from Edwards to push Clinton up. The Powers That Be have decided on a Clinton or McCain or Rudy president. Those are the choices. No one else is allowed. AND the meek little sheep keep on following even though its leading over the edge of a cliff.

[totodeinhere]

97. That's a little too conspiratorial for me.

I really want to believe that Obama is sincere. When I met him here in Elko on Saturday he came off as very believable. Or am I one of those sheep that you are talking about?

[glowing]

197. Knowing that the inditment that is being handed out by Fitzgerald

to a person with ties to Obama makes me think that he is not trying to bring his business to the G.E... because that stuff will be plastered all over the papers when the repugs are running against him. He may be sincere.. but he can't go all the way.

[totodeinhere]

96. I hear what you are sayinjg, but...

We still need to work as hard as we can to elect a Dem. At least we can try to hold the Dem's feet to the fire, even if it turns out to be HRC. But if the Repugs get back in there will be no hope whatsoever.

[Armstead]

99. You're right -- But that's getting really old

In both victory and defeat, the Democrats in power always want to "keep theiur powder dry" no matter how much their feet are held to the fire.

[peacetalksforall]

174. We don't seem to have Pelosi's or Reid's feet held to the fire ....

Many have accused Leahy, Waxman, and Conyers of giving us rhetoric instead of an ending.

I once remember being proud of Feinstein and Pelosi and thought SF and CA were lucky to have two fighters from (originally from?) their state.

I thought Schumer was a real fighter - for the Party.

I keep fantasizing that they are not doing anything about Republican crimes because they are putting together outside court cases - that they determined that it was a more expedient route.

We get so pumped up about different votes and then nothing - another loss.

We hear about Repub crimes of arrogant atrocities against the American people and we think 'our' people are going to prosecute it.

People say that our social agendas are better. Not when the vote comes in.

Who has bestowed the more valuable gifts on Cheney and Bush - our Dem leaders, the Republican lobbyists, or the wealthy Kings and Sheiks of Arabia, Middle East, 'Southwest Asia'.

No, I don't think we can hold their feet to the fire - excpept at the caucus level and not enough people are aware of what the real problems are. We are either nearly or completely in the contol of the corporations.

[x-g.o.p.er]

98. Both parties, it seems, are bought and owned by

corporate America to prop up who they want to do their bidding.

[sandyd921]

106. The problem is

the "Corporate Power and Global Big Capital". They've bought most of the Democrats too. The solution: a lot of us regular people willing to take them on and fight like hell! BTW it's not going to be a quick fight as measured by election cycles; it may very well be a long, epic battle. I just hope enough of us have the heart and the toughness to wage it! I say let's just dig in our heels and prepare for it.

[jus_the_facts]

108. Back to the Future....exactly....

....sigh....I feel your pain. x(

:hi: Berks...always a pleasure to hear from you my friend. :loveya:

[Armstead]

120. Thanks

ditto

[sellitman]

109. Until we take Corporate money out of the equation

We will continue to get the leaders that are bought and paid for.

Sad but true.

[bvar22]

121. Catch 22!

The Corporate Sponsored incumbents are the ones who would have to institute the reforms. :shrug:
They aren't likely to bite the hand that feeds them.





The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Armstead]

127. If we had a lick of sense it wouldn't be a Catch 22

That's what I'm so frustrated about right now.

It doesn't require a lot of esoteric knowledge to recognize that too much power and wealth is in too few hands.

It is totally within our collective power to change that. Not overnight, but to begin to move in the right direction.

And yet, we still accept shallow campaigns, get ourselves distracted by meaningless trivia and trumped-up "feuds" and special-interest politics and go for the name recognition.

The real Catch 22 is our own damn collective mental and emotional paralysis.

[tabasco]

110. Exactly how I feel.

The status quo goes marching into Washington singing "change! change! change!"

[LWolf]

112. Democratic candidates and politicians are not the only Democrats

who fail to "walk their talk." Why the fuck should we expect elected reps to do so, when voters don't?

Voters SAY they are "against the Iraq war," but vote for war supporters.

Voters SAY they want "universal health care," but vote for candidates that leave health care in the hands of private insurers.

Voters SAY they support labor, but vote for NAFTA/CAFTA supporters.

Let's face it. The corruption, the hypocrisy, begins at the grass-roots level.

[bpeale]

151. OMG! no truer words were ever spoken!

[LWolf]

152. Unfortunately.

:(

If voters simply had the courage to walk/vote their own talk, we'd have reps in office who would do the same.

[bpeale]

165. i posted the following last night & i mean every word of it...

<<if Edwards does not make it, this will be the first election since i turned 21, thats 40 years, that i will not cast a ballot for president. that people continually vote AGAINST their own best interests, even after 8 yrs of Bush, just plain disgusts me.

it's starting to look like it will be at least 8 more years after 2009 before people get the healthcare they need, at least 8 more years of unending debt with no relief thru bankruptcy, at least 8 more years before we think about getting out of iraq, at least 8 more yrs that our vets will be going to sleep under bridges or on grates.>>

i'd like to say that we are better than this, but apparently we are not. 47 million are currently in poverty. how many more will be there in 8 more years? in 8 more years will the middle class even be here anymore? i don't think so.

say what you will. the supreme court won't matter in 8 yrs because all those powers that gwb has amassed will NEVER be overturned. our rights will never be returned to us. our constitution will officially be dead and so will america. there will never be any justice for the american people. there will never again be a rule of law to worry about. we will be officially the next Russia. i will be getting my passport because i don't intend on living in this country and will, in fact, be able to live a better life abroad.

[LWolf]

176. I hear you.

I am willing to compromise. If my first choice candidate doesn't win the nomination, I'll vote for my 2nd choice. That's as far as I'm going, and no further.

My first choice is Dennis Kucinich.

My second choice is Edwards.

I think what we are seeing now is evidence that we've already gone too far down the wrong road. The only way to get back on course is for voters to stand up, and I don't see that happening. :(

[Manifestor_of_Light]

190. Going abroad will enable 47 million of us to have health insurance.

Universal, single-payer health insurance. Or at least to be able to afford some medical care if we go to Latin America.

[NorthCarolina]

114. Join in Kucinich's Effort to Eradicate DLC Dems from the Party

and reclaim the Democratic Party as an advocate for the people. Vote out those Dems associated with the DLC and replace them with Traditional Democrats. It's the only way to fight back and reclaim the party as our own.

[Maat]

I really appreciate this thread, DUers.

I'm feeling down for the same reason. I want to disclose that I'm not poor, primarily because of my husband's and my family's (paternal grandparents' and father's) sacrifices; but, we budget and budget despite the nestegg.

When I became a mental health counseling intern, and, subsequently, a social worker, I awakened to the Corporatocracy. I really hoped for better this time. I, however, also hoped for better in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

During this time of reflecting on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I feel as if we let him down. We need a powerful and unbeatable progressive movement to become very vocal, and we need to fight for HEAVY taxation of billionaires and multi-multi-millionaires. We need to fight for universal, single-payer health coverage, and for an end to the use of cluster bombs. We need to fight (peacefully) for an end to 'unending' violence. We need to fight for peace and justice.

We need to honor his memory.

[Armstead]

126. I appreciate your response

Peace and justice.

[debbierlus]

123. The American people always cast out those who tell them the truth

It isn't until we get a full blown crisis that we will see real change.

Gore stayed away from the election for a reason. The people have to be READY to accept real sacrifice & work together to manifest this change.

People say change. But, what will they sacrifice? Will they accept gas price increases to fund alternative energy? Will they accept that the debt that Bush & Co. spent us into will require us to pay more taxes or receive less services? Will they be willing to give up their fear to accept a smaller defense budget? (The fear mongerers would have a field day with THAT one). How about realizing we can't save the globe & keep our gluttonous consumption of fuel & resources. Would we exchange our quality of life for long term benefits, the very survival of our children?

Not yet. The wave of crisis has not yet hit. It will. A tidal wave of cold water to slap us out of our comfortable stupor. This will create the change you desire. This is how change happens with people. Unfortunately, human nature has not evolved to keep pace with our technology & the ability to destroy the whole world.

We have had a hundred years of rapid change that we did not take the necessary steps to prepare for....We have plunged ahead into our own abyss. And, I do not fault anyone for it. We are just humans and fallible. We developed for mere survival. We weren't ready.

This is a culmination. The problems are so big. And, it isn't just us. The way the rest of the world is imitating our folly shows that humans are humans are humans....no matter where you go.

The best we can hope is a little more time. And, hopefully, that will be enough for us to move on.

Courage.

[bvar22]

124. If you like the performance of the 2006 Democratic Controlled Congress

you'll LOVE a Hillary/Obama presidency.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Desertrose]

129. I know exactly how you feel ...

and I can see that a lot of others here feel the same way.

If you "get it", then you GET IT.

All too soon, even the most diehard supporters of "MY candidate is different than yours" will get it too...but its soon gonna be too late.

We live in the Corporate State of America and as slaves of such, we are being entertained currently, by the game of "politics", when in reality, the outcome is already decided.

The winner is......
.
.
.
.
drumroll please
.
taa daa
.
.
another corporate candidate.


Until we are willing to either wake up, maybe give up a few small comforts,take some kind of action....demand some major changes.....(maybe not even then).... I don't see things changing much.

Unless we view the world differently....its gonna stay the same(if we're lucky) .....or worse.

[Phred42]

131. I dissagree with your Premis that WE are choosing

the Candidates. Or the President for that matter.

One of my favorite quotes and I've plugged it in a few places today

“Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who writes it’s laws…”
- Meyer Armschel Rothschild 1790

The only perspective I can find to view this from, where everything falls into line and makes sense is:

The Democrats are the silent partners of the Cons and Corporations.

This is true, at least, of the DLC if not half of the Dems and bout 99% of the Repugs

"If you eliminate the impossible whatever remains however improbable has to be the truth."- Sherlock Holmes "

[mike_c]

136. you've neatly expressed why NEITHER major party is likely to earn my vote...

...in November. I'm tired of squandering my vote on the lessor evil.

[Pyrzqxgl]

137. I think some of us have to start saying maybe we won't support the Democratic nominee

unless everyone is encouraging the media to give everyone a fair shake.

[Wednesdays]

138. You're preaching to the choir...

don't get me wrong, I appreciate your message. It's just that a large percentage of people here are DU "get it," but we're the ones with the eye on the ball at all times, who read about everything that's going on in the country and the world, and we know what's happening. Unfortunately, we only make up a tiny bit of the electorate...the rest of America is glued to their TVs, nodding obediently to their M$M corporate masters, and like pod people go vote for whom the talking heads have pre-ordained to be our leaders. :puke:

[graywarrior]

139. I feel the same kind of rage, my friend.

[Two Americas]

143. winning is fool's gold

The right wingers don't need to win elections, and winning elections is not enough for us.

1. They don't need to win elections

- All the time that the Democrats controlled Congress, the right wingers were busy as beavers building grass roots political power and creating propaganda think tanks.

- All the time that Clinton was in the White House, the right wingers were consolidating and expanding their power right under our noses, often with the administration enabling them in that, wittingly or unwittingly. It is easy to see the actions of the Bush administration, but not so easy (nor comfortable) to see how the Democrats set the table for them, how we failed to see the impending danger and adequately stand up to it, and how all of the essential groundwork for the Bush administration had already been accomplished before Bush took office.

- Freed from the responsibility of actually having to hold office, the right wingers can often do more damage behind the scenes without much public scrutiny.

- They can steal elections, they don't always need to win them.

2. Putting Democrats in office is necessary, but not sufficient.

- The notion that we can win office, and then figure out what we stand for, should now after the performance of the current Congress be demolished in people's minds forever. If you didn't run on, and weren't elected on a promise to strongly fight the right wingers, you will not be able to do so once in office. Can there be any doubt now that in the absence of fighting the right wingers, they will ultimately win no matter how many Democrats we put into office?

- You can't fight a battle, let alone win it, if you don't know where the battle lines are drawn nor who the enemy is. The Republicans know this and show up for every battle and win most of them, while we are often distracted and missing in action. The Republicans represent the interests of the wealthy and powerful few. If we do not strongly and unambiguously represent the interests of the other 90% of the people, we are on the wrong battlefield, with inadequate forces, inappropriate and weak leadership, and the lack of a clear mission.

- The right wingers focus on building broad grass roots support, while our grass roots power is consumed in and destroyed promoting candidates. On the solid base of a consistent platform, the Republicans can run just about any candidates and succeed. We lack that sort of consensus and solidarity, and have no flexibility in tactics and strategy. The Republicans support the super wealthy, and con the people into supporting that with whatever it takes to get the job done. The Republicans reach out to the have-nots and make them welcome, we build exclusive clubs of the enlightened people. They are running circles around us in the battle for the grass roots.

- The right wingers shoot for the moon, we are "practical" and "realistic." We trash out and run off our strongest left wing people, for fear of "alienating" that mythical swing voter by being "too radical." They start with their most idealistic program, their most outrageous and extreme ideas. We cringe in fear of red-baiting and McCarthyism, and are tossing everyone even remotely on the left under the bus, and the determination of who is "too far left" creeps ever rightward. They don't cringe in fear of being seen as fascists or extreme right wingers. They agree on their ultimate right wing program - no compromise and no caution - and then get busy implementing it with their hands free. We waste most of our time and energy helping them destroy the left.

- They don't allow a fifth column with their own ranks. No ideas that defend or protect the have-nots are permitted to be heard within their camp without being challenged. Yet within the Democratic party all sorts of "free market" and other pro-big business, authoritarian, anti-Labor, and pro-status quo ideas right out of the right wing playbook are given free reign - ideas that can only promote the interests of the wealthy and powerful few at the expense of the traditional constituency of the Democratic party - the vast majority of people in the country.

[natrat]

145. WE tend to be politically smart, most of America is not on both sides

i think nader was right

[mdmc]

146. a good read my friend

:kick:

[butterfly77]

149. That's the way I feel about it...

[sallyseven]

155. Are you going to run for office???

House of Reps or Senate? Are you working for a candidate who will attempt to change things? If not then sit down and shut up your annoying me. Do something about it. Back someone.

[Armstead]

158. I back candidates -- Take a look at my avatar

Progressive and/or clear liberals who actually stand for something. Unfortunately, the mushy centrists always seem to win. hence my rant.

[MissDeeds]

157. Great post, Armstead

And I agree completely with all you said. I think we are seeing the Democratic Party change before our eyes, and not for the better. In this election we have the opportunity to nominate a candidate who embodies the ideals that have been inherent in the party for decades. It seems that celebrity and money are driving this election on the dem side. Do we want the best candidate, or the best candidate money can buy? For me, it is no contest. John Edwards is the true Democrat in the race, and I will support him through the general election.

[elias7]

159. can someone elucidate on Edwards'plan to combat corporatism?

I have searched for details, but can't really find a plan. As a Kucinich supporter who has seen many embrace Edwards as the other Progressive candidate, I would love a reason to embrace Edwards other than talk... Thanks in advance...

[Patchuli]

160. I couldn't agree more

and sadly, the only President I want to be President didn't declare...sigh.

Still loving Gore...my rightful Pres!

[balantz]

171. It is true, and depressing. Most Americans have been raised to follow in step.

I know I once did. How can we possibly break through the media? I know people who weren't aware until I told them that there was another choice besides corporate candidate "A" and corporate candidate "B". Someone said the other day, "Who is Edwards?"

I'm afraid we may have to face the fact that the thieves have locked everything in place for the great heist, and they have been working on it for generations. When the last Great Depression was manufactured and thrust upon the common folk there were still clear skies, water, and food growing in many yards. There was a way for most people to scratch some food together. This next one will be a horror. It will not be pretty.

[asdjrocky]

177. Trust me, I know how you feel. n/t

[OzarkDem]

178. Its bad news

I really thought we Dems would have regained our party strength and direction by now.

The continued influence of big money in elections is slowly destroying our country and there's no more obvious example than the Democratic Party and its insistence on shoving corporate financed candidates down our collective throats.

Its not my parents Dem Party, nor my grandparents.

I really fear we will be the first generation to leave our children in worse shape than the America we grew up in.

[unapatriciated]

183. no need to fear it ...

for it is already come to be. What we need to do is recognize it and fight to overturn what started with Reagan and was accelerated by bush. We have been lazy for too long and the wolf is at our door. I have met many Dems(some of them union members) over the last ten years who have blamed the problems of the middle class on unions or said they were no longer needed. This attitude has attributed to the decline of unions and the power the working class once enjoyed. Reagan was a union buster and he blamed them for everything that ailed Middle America. Middle America bought it hook line and sinker. Now we are almost totally controlled by corporations. Notice I said almost, we can change it if we fight back. If we resign ourself to the status quo it will be the 30's all over again and we will have to repeat the fight that our parents and grandparents fought so long ago.

[Beam Me Up]

180. We no longer live in a Democratic Republic. Supporting candidates the

media parades before us while ignoring those with a deeper analysis is NOT going to bring the change we all want to see. Neither will voting in unverifiable elections. The whole political process is now stage-managed from one election cycle to the next.

In this cycle we're been given to choose between two candidates that appeal to out-dated social issues such as women's equality and civil rights. I'm not saying these issues have no relevance; what I'm saying is that these issues are superficial compared to the deep criminality of the state -- that such social issues as sexism and racism can not be truly addressed so long as the criminality of the deep state is not exposed and ended. Moreover, either of these candidates can easily be made to appear to loose the general election (whether they do loose it in fact or not). The intended outcome is quite clear: As incredible as it may seem to us, if things progress as they have so far, a Republican will be in the WH this time next year. And even if by some miracle a Democrat is installed instead, THAT Democrat will cooperate with, not challenge, the deep criminal status quo.

edit clarity

[Desertrose]

194. kick for this post!!!

Excellent (but really sad) analysis, BMU.
:hi:
DR

[Beam Me Up]

200. What it is going to take: William Pepper

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7062060021997659224&hl=en

[redqueen]

195. It's all so depressing. (nt)

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

191. Totally agree-- the DLC is ruining the Democratic Party

at the level of our most basic principles.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

201. "Another Damn Issue-Free General Election in which Big Problems will be met with Small Answers"

Sadly I have to agree. It's also been a concern of mine. Maybe our present candidates have magical secret plans they'll spring on us once elected.