Five degrees,

[MadHound]

That's what we saw last night from the "top tier" candidates, five degrees of separation at best. With Kucinich out of the debate, the corporately controlled candidates felt free to show us exactly how much they agree on the issues. Sure, there was a snag here, a spark there, but in total, these three were very, very similar.

Sad, really. I was thinking that if Hillary didn't get the nod, I could actually vote for Obama or Edwards. But after last night's performance I'm going to have to rethink these things. Hillary got out front on the issues, and got the other two to go along with her world view. And why shouldn't they, her world view is simply the corporate world view, which infects all of our corporately controlled candidates.

This is the real tragedy of the Kucinich exclusion, there is nobody out front on the campaign who is acting as the conscience of the campaign. It allows the candidates to follow their baser natures and go back into their old, solid, comfortable corporate centrist ruts, which means that for the most part, we the people are screwed.

I will vote for Kucinich in the primary, however my vote in the general has now just pretty much gone up for grabs. I was already dead set against Hillary, and if the other two continue this corporately controlled mummer's show, this slide to the center, and all their positions have the corporate seal of approval, then I'm going to have to look elsewhere.

Perhaps it was simply last night, but somehow I doubt it. I think that with Kucinich out of the picture these three felt free to be their corporate collegial buddy best, adapting each other's position and making this a race based on style rather than substance. Sad, very sad.

No candidate won last night, however we all just lost. There are going to be no great differences, no radical changes in policy(which is what we need now). No, instead with any of these three what you're going to see is simply a slowdown in the pace with which we're approaching the cliff edge, not a change in direction.

Sad when the one candidate who has been right on virtually all the issues, all along, is now excluded from consideration by the US media. Sadder still when Democrats go along with this travesty. What's happened to our party? Oh, yeah, it get bought off by corporate America.

[Demeter]

1. A Perfect Example of "Freedom of the Press,Freedom of Speech"

Those who own the press are free to speak their minds.

[Angela Shelley]

2. Hi Madhound, a question for you.

When did the Democratic party "get bought off by corporate America"?

I´m a newcomer to political party history, please share some thoughts.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. November, 1992...

The rise of the DLC.

[Angela Shelley]

5. From the newcomer, what´s the DLC?

[Cooley Hurd]

7. The Democratic Leadership Council - otherwise known as Corporate Dems...

It was formed to funnel corporate $$$ from the republicans by promising to be friendly w/ corporations (i.e. tax cuts for the corporations plus deregulation), at the expense of the middle class.

[Angela Shelley]

9. How many people are on the DLC?

Maybe that´s why some people refer to the system as a "one party system"?

[MadHound]

12. Don't know how many people belong to the DLC

But the entire party feels their influence. But the development of the two party/same corporate master system of government that we're operating under now has been ongoing for most of my life, sad to say. It is one thing that was brought home to me forcefully when I first became politically active on the McGovern campaign. McGovern was an unexpected nominee, Muskie was supposed to be the torchbearer in '72. But his breakdown on the campaign trail pretty much shot that down, so McGovern swooped in and snagged the nod. Sadly, he was too liberal for virtually all of the party's bigwigs, so they withheld their money and help, letting him sink or swim on his own. That's why he failed so badly against Nixon. It became apparent to me then that both parties were essentially pushing the same positions, and that has only become worse ever since.

[MadHound]

8. Democratic Leadership Council

A group of very centerist, even conservative Dems who are all corporately controlled. They aren't officially part of the party, however they exert a huge amount of influence on the candidates and positions that they take.

[Angela Shelley]

11. If I googled the term, would I find out the real story behind the DLC,

and if they are not officially part of the party, why do they have so much influence.

Is it a "follow the money" constellation?

[mediaman007]

4. Usually when it is elected!

[MadHound]

6. Oh, politicians have become increasingly corporately controlled throughout my lifetime

I've watched this phenomenon throughout my life. Sometimes it is really apparent, such as under Bill Clinton or Reagan, when they would push legislation that benefited their biggest donors(which is why we had the repeal of Glas-Steagal under Clinton, who got the majority of his finances from the financial sector).

I've found that if one takes a look at the candidate's donors, you can form a much more accurate picture of how that candidate is going to function. Big oil donations, we're going to drill away, big donations from Wall St, well those market numbers are going to go through the roof, no matter how badly it hurts the people. Really, a pretty accurate barometer of what the candidate will really do, not what they're saying they'll do.

[Angela Shelley]

10. Is there a solution, a way out, a different road to take?

[MadHound]

13. Publicly funded elections are the best answer.

Failing that, the rise of a multiparty system to force the candidates to have some real differences and take some substantial positions.

[DCKit]

14. The state and local elections are more important than ever.

With enough independent Dem's asses in seats from the city council to the House and Senate, the next pResident won't be able to push the corporate agenda, no matter how beholden they are.

Just sayin'.

[Blackhatjack]

15. If you're unwilling to save our country from another 4 yrs of Repub Rule, We'll do it without you...

I'm sorry your first choice for President will not be available, and I can understand you are disappointed.

However, that does nothing to change the importance of this election to our country.

I just do not have a lot of sympathy for people who insist on having their way or they bail out of the process altogether.

Casting a vote in the Presidential General Election this time could not be more important, given that the next President will decide what we do in Iraq, Afghanistan, likely appoint 2 or more justices to the SCOTUS during his term, and decide a whole host of issues that will affect every American.

It is up to you to decide which is more important: Cast a vote for a non-viable 3rd party candidate 'to send a message', but which allows a continuation of Republican policies for another 4-8 years, OR cast a vote for the Democratic Candidate in the General Election and be part of the 'change' this country so desperately needs.