Obama's "win" must surely offer up some commentary on a 'rejection' of the status quo by voters in America. It's a possibility that Obama won New Hampshire as the count and recount in NH are mired in suspicion of voter fraud. Gosh, Americans can't trust the election process. Go figure. The two parties (Dems & Repubs) would do well to take a hard look at what they offer in the way of leadership. The array of posers marketing their "electability" on both sides of the political aisle, are an abysmal offering of banality, failing intellect, warmongering platitudes, racist jingoism, and utter corrupt morality. The strength of American leadership stands on the sidelines of the process and that all by itself speaks loads about how the current process is tainted.

I guess if Mr. Clemons is going to place the race card (Obama winning the black vote will hurt him with Latinos), someone should point out that Obama got 24 percent of the white vote in SC in a three way race with two white candidates. He more than doubled his pre-election poll numbers -- a reverse Bradley effect.

HILLARY'S AND BILL'S PREDATORY LENDING IN WHITEWATER LOT SALES: Buyers who missed just ONE monthly payment lost ALL their equity in Whitewater lots! LOOKS LIKE A RIP-OFF TO ME!

Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, courtesy of Peter Schweizer’s (oh so aptly titled) book, Do As I Say (Not As I Do), pp 106-109:
Do As I Say (Not As I Do)

… Then consider the Whitewater investment. Forget for a minute about all the scandal associated with the word and the convoluted financing arrangements. Look at it for a minute as a pure investment—the biggest business venture that the Clintons had ever been involved in prior to the presidency.

Back in 1978, Bill Clinton was a popular Arkansas attorney general running for governor. He was campaigning as a reformer, an advocate of “consumer protection” and “rights for the elderly.” Like Hillary, he was concerned about unscrupulous “private corporations.” And as he has so often done in his public career, he made a point of claiming the moral high ground over his opponent.

An old friend and political operative, Jim McDougall, came to Bill and Hillary with an investment idea. He wanted to purchase 230 acres of land situated along the White River in the Ozark Mountains of north Arkansas and subdivide it to sell lots as vacation sites. McDougall promised huge returns, on the order of 20 percent a year. The Clintons thought it sounded like a great plan. Hillary in particular had high hopes for the property.

While publicly criticizing Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts, she wrote McDougall in 1981: “If Reaganomics works at all, Whitewater could become the western hemisphere’s Mecca.”
The Clintons put no money into the investment. But Hillary, as an attorney in private practice, played an important role in establishing and running the venture. And what a venture it was meant to be. Whitewater was not designed as a regular real estate company.

The plan was to sell lots, mainly to elderly retirees and middle-class families, by advertising in small-town newspapers. (They advertised several times in Mother Earth News.) Ordinarily, of course, when you buy a piece of land and finance the purchase, you receive a copy of the deed. If you start missing payments and can’t work things out with the finance company, they will eventually repossess the property. After paying off fees and debts, you will get back any remaining equity.

But the Clintons and McDougall did things differently. When customers wanted to buy a lot, they signed a simple purchase agreement. But this was no ordinary real estate contract. The small print at the bottom read: “In the event the default continues for 30 days … payments made by the purchaser shall be considered as rent for the use of the premises.” In other words, the buyers did not actually take ownership of their property until the final payment was made. If a buyer missed just one monthly payment, all their previous payments would be classified as rent and they would have no equity in the land at all.
This sort of contract was illegal in many other states, because it was considered exploitative of the poor and uneducated!’

One look at the experience of those who bought into Whitewater and you can see why.
Clyde Soapes was a grain-elevator operator from Texas who heard about the lots in early 1980 and jumped at the chance to invest. He put $3,000 down and began making payments of $244.69 per month. He made thirty-five payments in all—totaling $11,564.15, just short of the $14,000 price for the lot. Then he suddenly fell ill with diabetes and missed a payment, then two. The Clintons informed him that he had lost the land and all of his money. There was no court proceeding or compensation. Months later they resold his property to a couple from Nevada for $16,500. After they too missed a payment, the Clintons resold it yet again.

Soapes and the couple from Nevada were not alone. More than half of the people who bought lots in Whitewater—teachers, farmers, laborers, and retirees—made payments, missed one or two, and then lost their land without getting a dime of their equity back. According to Whitewater records, at least sixteen different buyers paid more than $50,000 and never received a property deed. The Clintons continued this approach up until the 1992 election, when they tried to quietly get out of the investment.

I say “the Clintons” did these things because Hillary was at the center of it all. Monthly payment checks were sent to the Whitewater Development Corporation in care of Hillary Rodham Clinton. In 1982, Hillary herself sold a home to Hillman Logan, who went bankrupt and then died. She took possession of the home and resold it to another buyer for $20,000. No one was compensated (and she didn’t report the sale on her tax return).

Hillary has always very indignantly maintained that she and her husband “did nothing wrong” with regard to Whitewater. After all, they lost money in the deal. But they have always avoided discussions about how the business was structured, and how it exploited the very people they have often professed to help.

In the meantime, Sen. Hillary Clinton has gone on to champion the cause of going after banks and other lenders for “predatory mortgage lending practices.” In an amazing feat of moral dexterity, she cosponsored the Predatory Consumer Lending Act, claiming that mortgage fees are too high. (No, the law does not outlaw the type of financing scheme she was involved in).

Just bear this in mind when you hear Hillary shedding her crocodile tears about predatory lenders and unfair mortgage foreclosures — or even “slumlords.”

Hey, Robert baby! thanks for helping out the Obama campaign with your robocalls. With you now firmly in the Obama camp, we here would like you to compose some robocalls for him in the upcoming Presidential election!

Something like this, in the push poll category:

Do you consider a fighter pilot who gets shot down by the enemy a War Hero?

Is your definition of a War Hero a fighter pilot who breaks his arms ejecting from his shot down plane because he failed to follow procedures?

Is a military man a War Hero if he is forced to surrender to the enemy?

Is a prisoner of war a War Hero because his father was an Admiral at the time and he comes from a long line of military men?

Being an expert you could likely phrase these questions much better than I.

Glad to have you aboard the Obama express to the White House!

Best regards

President Bush wants the Senate to pass retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies who spied on Americans. For the President, this isn't just about letting his friends at AT&T and Verizon off the hook. He knows this is the American people's last chance to hold the Bush administration accountable for their warrantless wiretapping of innocent Americans.

The key vote is scheduled for late Monday afternoon and the count is down to the wire. We need 41 Senators to stand up to President Bush and right now we have only 36.

Senators Clinton and Obama are the missing votes. If Senator Clinton or Obama stands up and leads from the floor of the U.S. Senate and calls upon the 8 senators that have endorsed their campaigns to stand with them, we'll have the votes we need and the American people will win.

Democracy for America will not stay silent and hope our Presidential candidates will lead. We demand it. That's why we're running this ad in the New York Times on Monday.

Take action now and make sure the media pressures Senators Clinton and Obama too. Contact the major media outlets below to make sure they know what you want our presidential candidates to do and include the ad link.

Send this link:

www.Democracy
forAmerica.com/ProveIt

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/71572.html

Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 12:31 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have collected over 20 hours of video taken by six different people. It will tell much of the story of the New Hampshire recount.

After some thought, I think the best way to do this is with as little editing as possible, to allow viewers to reach their own conclusions based on what they see. I will organize clips into uniform topics and will keep them short, with a few captions to provide context.

Links will appear on the Black Box Voting home page. For those of you who receive automatic e-mails, I'll post an announcement with a link when each new video goes up.

While Sec. State Bill Gardner may win the prize for the most circuitous and nonresponsive answers, ballot guy David Scanlan will win the award for belligerence.

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE CHAIN OF CUSTODY SHAM

I posted this one first because I was so haunted by New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner's demeanor and the expression on his face on the night he chose not to put the ballots in the vault. This 6-minute video contains three related clips: Frank Mevers, who holds a key to the ballot vaults, describing that the white tape seals the boxes; Sec. State Bill Gardner along with Frank Mevers, Brian Burford and Karen Ladd, as he is questioned about the decision not to use the vault; and a demonstration of the sham seal.

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM

PARTICIPANTS

The first voice you hear, questioning Mevers about the seal, is that of Paddy Shaffer of the Ohio Election Justice Project.

The voice questioning Bill Gardner over the decision not to use the vault is mine. The voice telling him he did not answer the question is Sally Castleman of Election Defense Alliance.

Susan Pynchon (Florida Fair Elections Coalition) and I chased the ballot van on Jan. 17; on Jan. 22, Vickie Karp (Vote Rescue) and I chased the van, and on Jan. 23, due to speeding and evasive maneuvers by the ballot van, two teams followed the van with video cameras: Team one, Vickie Karp and Jeannie Dean (Sarasota, Florida); Team Two, me and Kathy Greenwell (Bullitt County, Kentucky.)

HOW WE CAME TO FIND BALLOT BOXES AND A SUPPLY BOX"

We returned to the archive building to wait for Butch and Hoppy to return the ballots they'd picked up. We were shocked to see that the building appeared to be deserted, but was unlocked, and the counting room was unlocked, and contained empty ballot boxes and a supply box with seals, tape etc.

When we left, a small car literally ran us out of the parking lot all the way to the road. It was not a security professional, but one of the workers in the archive building. About 15 minutes after we left, Butch and Hoppy arrived to deliver the ballots. No citizen witnesses were present, nor was the candidate notified so he could have his own witnesses.

FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE POLICE

In order to determine whether there were ballots in the boxes or not, I gently nudged the boxes with my shoe. The light weight indicated the ballot boxes were empty. At least one ballot box, for the town of Plaistow, contained the original sham seal signed by the moderator and selectmen. It was empty.

It was my decision to demonstrate the sham seals on videotape. I will be happy to reimburse the state of New Hampshire for the $1 or so cost for the sham "seal", since I used a blank seal on an empty box. Of course, as you will see in the video above, these seals are reusable, worthless, and fraudulent.

I would not have performed the demonstration had the state of New Hampshire complied with my requests to show me whether the seals adhere. I requested this of Deputy Sec. State Anthony Stevens, of Assistant Sec. State Dave Scanlan, and of Sec. State Bill Gardner. They each declined to demonstrate the removability of the seal, but did claim that the removable paper "sealed" the ballot boxes and amazingly, used the fraudulent "seal" to secure the DOOR TO THE ROOM WHERE BALLOTS WERE STORED OVERNIGHT. My demonstration was the only way to achieve the exposure of their lies, and clearly in the public interest.

The police interrogated Vickie Karp and Jeannie Dean today about this. They were present, at least for part of the demo. They were not involved in the decision or the act of testing the seal. The decision to demonstrate the "seal" fraud was mine and only mine.

I have so far been unable to find out who ordered these seals, since not a soul at the New Hampshire secretary of state's office claims to know who's responsible for the fraudulent seals.

UPCOMING VIDEO CLIPS

As I say, stay tuned for the video clips. They show employees for the state of New Hampshire breaking the law, and also will show you tips for how to investigate chain of custody yourselves.

Check back often over the next three days for new video installments.

Steve was indeed correct on Edwards. I just hope Edwards continues to influence the discussion.

I share both Caroline AND Steve's assessment.

"But I will say that JFK, as significant a leader as he was, was a hard core Cold War hawk."-- Yes!

How to reconcile?

While Obama may have spoken against the original invasion of Iraq, he votes to continue the war by funding it, seems to condone keeping troops in the ME (to protect the embassy, which is essentially a misdirecting way of saying the same thing?), keeping "all options on the table", and invading Pakistan if Musharraf won't deliver Ossama?

Am I mistaken on Obama's position on the use of force?

"While in the end, his intellect and the assembled high quality intellectuals he had around him kept the world from falling into a nuclear catastrophe with the Soviet Union, it was Kennedy's youthfulness and his combination of hawkishness and Wilsonian rhetoric that helped precipitate a number of crises."

How I assess Obama as well. And why we need to know more about Obama's "assembled intellects". His intellect may help in in ways Bush's could not, but it is that assemblage that will likely ultimately decide.

It was the fact that Gerald Ford assumed the responsibility of President without *ANY* "assembled high quality intellectuals" that allowed Rumsfeld,Cheney, and Bush to fill this void, hijack our government and get us into this mess in the first place.

Published on Saturday, January 26, 2008 by Huffington Post

It’s Time to Hold Democratic House Leaders in Contempt

by Naomi Wolf

Enough is enough.

Like many of us, after having watched helplessly as the Bush administration trampled the Constitution and made a mockery of checks and balances over the course of five bitter years, I was hopeful when the American people elected a Democratic Congress in November of 2006. Finally, I imagined, we would have a whiff of legality and the hint of a restoration of the rule of law in the land. Perhaps we would even have congressional committees to oversee the administration’s subversions of the rule of law and investigate the wide range of abuses that it had perpetrated since 2001.

There has been a bit of movement — which is why the thousands of Americans I have met who are appalled at these abuses but feel powerless to raise their voices effectively should take heart, but not stop their fight. To some extent, these raised voices have yielded some action: Congress has in fact held numerous hearings on issues — ranging from torture to warrantless wiretapping — that had been taboo to contend with when the administration was heedlessly, and unopposed, using a hyped narrative of `the global war on terror’ to subdue American liberties. Most prominently, we got some of the bad guys out of town. Citizen-driven congressional investigations into the politicization of the Department of Justice, for example, spurred the resignations of many key Bush administration officials, including the mild-mannered gatekeeper of the first bolgia of Hell, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

And yet, where it counts most, Democratic leaders in Congress have completely abdicated their constitutional oversight role. What they are doing now reprises the worst failures of other self-paralyzed Parliaments in societies that were facing crackdowns on civil liberties and the rule of law, and their voluntary self-emasculation may go down in history as one of those turning points at which leaders cave shamefully to transformative pressure that leaves a country far less than its founded ideal. Through their actions, they are potentially causing irreparable harm to the institution of Congress itself.

At issue is the failure of White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to comply with congressional subpoenas to testify about the 2006 firings of a handful of U.S. Attorneys. We now have an America in which Congress says, “We subpoena you.” And potential criminals say, “Yeah? F— off.”

As most people know, the Bush administration asserted executive privilege on behalf of Bolten and Miers and refused to allow them to comply with the subpoenas to testify before the House Judiciary Committee last July. It is widely understood that executive privilege only protects certain conversations and correspondences with the president and is not intended to be a blanket privilege — protecting possible wrongdoers against having to appear before Congress AT ALL.

By going far beyond specific exchanges between the president and other officials, the White House essentially asserted that Congress has no power over the executive branch and could not question executive branch officials about their activities. This is an affront to our Constitution. In the shootout of this executive power grab, it effectively leaves one branch of government fatally wounded on Main Street.

Guess what? In America, Congress is not supposed to be tied up and left for dead as potential criminals walk away with impunity. Within weeks, the few brave members of the House Judiciary Committee who were apparently still sentient and still aware of their role as Americans appropriately passed a criminal contempt resolution against both Bolten and Miers.

It was then in the hands of Democratic leaders in the House to bring the resolution to the floor for a vote.

Since then, the citizens of this High Noon scenario have been hiding under the bar stools as the black hats swagger through the nation’s abandoned thoroughfare, and chaparral rolls through the streets. Democratic leaders are hiding from the call of destiny and offering nothing but delays and excuses to avoid producing any semblance of cojones.

In July, they said there would be a vote in September. In September, they said there would be a vote in October. In October, they said a vote would be “more likely” in November. In December, it appeared as if there would be a vote in December - which was then changed to January. If this was my twelve-year-old justifying an unfinished school project, she would be grounded. If it is your congressional representatives justifying an advanced case of cowardice, they should be fired.

Then, less than two weeks ago, on January 14, the Washington Post reported, under a headline, “House Democrats Target Bolten, Miers,” that the House would likely take up the resolutions in the next “couple of weeks.” With this information coming from “Democratic leadership aides,” it appeared as if — Hallelujah! — the long wait for some semblance of justice and a faint breeze of courage might be over.

But two days ago, Politico reported that the votes on criminal contempt citations had been — Say it ain’t so! — “postponed” by House Democrats. Now they were not expected “for weeks.” Moreover, after “Democratic leadership aides” asserted in October that Congress “would be able to round up the 218 votes needed to push through the resolution from Democrats alone,” a Democratic “insider” was now saying, “When we have the votes, we’ll go ahead with this. Right now, the votes are just not there.”

So let me get this straight. The Democrats in Congress cannot even get their own members together to defend the Constitution against a supremely unpopular executive who has essentially spit in their faces, eaten their lunch and the nation’s, and publicly called them out as powerless. Not to mention the fact that they are setting a precedent for the future that any executive can emasculate any Congress and defy any subpoena after having committed possibly any crime. Still they are trembling under the barstools — summoning up, perhaps, the courage to crawl out fully prone and toss their untouched guns humbly at the feet of the posse.

Remember this: each and every member of Congress took an oath — and the oath was not to some abstract government, it was an oath TO YOU — to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Unlike many good people across the political spectrum who are appalled at this dismantling of the three-part system the founders put in place and the besmirching of the rule of law, Congressional Republicans have clearly decided to place their allegiance to the president and their party over their allegiance to the Constitution. This is bad enough; this is, in fact, treason. But the Democrats do not even have that party allegiance as an excuse for their treachery. They would be standing up for their party, the institution of Congress, and the Constitution by passing the contempt resolutions. What more will it take to get them to act?

Those who think — as Pelosi apparently does — that they may rock the boat through a contempt citation in a way that endangers a possible Democratic victory in September are badly misreading the public mood — as well as severely misreading the historical record. If you don’t punish those who break the law at this stage of a crackdown on liberty — through contempt citations, through the use of Congress’s jail cell for those who are found guilty of contempt, and/or through the investigations of a truly independent prosecutor — you are not going to have a transparent, accountable election in November. You will have set a benchmark for impunity and you will get greater and greater crimes committed in the certainty of impunity.

If you doubt the dangers of this, think of the Gulf of Hormuz threat a few weeks ago — oops, hoax. Because the press is actually asking questions, the Pentagon’s narrative of a vicious Iranian provocation was sidelined. But it is purely naive to believe that a White House that would ignore subpoenas and impose yet another false threat scenario on the American people will conduct a transparent election in the fall, especially if it can get away with murder — the murder of the rule of law — today.

Tell your representative to move forward with contempt. And if your representatives fail to act, the punishment should not just be removal from office in the next election; they should also be subject to investigations themselves — for abetting crimes against the Constitution.

Contempt is at issue, indeed.

Naomi Wolf is the author of The New York Times bestseller “The End of America” (Chelsea Green) and is the co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign.

As for Obama I can't get over the impression there is no there there.
I guess I am odd because his speeches that the media raves over reminds me more of a preacher than a president.
I see today he is off to another church to make a speech. The thing about Obama is if you have heard one of his speeches you have heard them all.
And it really disturbs me that he thinks the solution to all our problems is for the dems, republicans and special interest to all get along with each other. As a citizen the last thing I want is Dems, Repubs and Lobbies all colluding together for the sake of bipartianship.

Our whole political scene as become so luciderous I hardly know how to comment on it any more. We are at the most dangerous period in our history and our election is more about race and sex and God and Elvis candidates than practical details and plans to get us out of our mess.

Steve, I haven't checked out the comments in this thread. I really don’t care what your readers think. Nor do I ever read comments threads on your blog. That’s not why I come here I check out this site for your unparallel International commentary as a blogger. And more…

But your subtle agitating for Hillary has been obvious for the last month. That’s fine. It’s made me visit your site a little less as an Obama supporter, but hey. It’s a free country. You’re a smart guy. I’ll still read your ideas.

This article makes me freaking sick.

Please. Advocate for Hillary if you must as an internationalist. Please tell us how her record is better then Obama’s. Tell us why she knows more than John Bolton. Why her hubby was better in North Korea than GWB. Tell us why you think she knows the ropes better then other candidates.

But please STOP telling us why those niggers in the Carolinas have hurt Obama. And Obama is race bating.

The F—cking race baiting sons a bitches in this election are the Clintons and I will NEVER vote for them. Not in the primary. Not in the general. I will leave the democratic party if she becomes the nominee.

I’m guessing you understand the point I’m making…

I love this site. Please don’t align yourself with anyone. Especially the most despicable thing the democratic field has ever fielded.

Pretend that you are not on anyone’s side…. And if you cannot. I simply cannot come here any more. And I will probably never click your articles in TPM any more either.

Thorin

or

Troll_Bait

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but Caroline isn't writing about the technicalities of JFKs presidency. She's writing about the youthful Camelot aura of the times JFK ushered in. The new young first family replacing the old; a generational change. And she's comparing her father's time with the same hoped for change that Obama represents. A generational changing of the guard.

Trying to compare JFKs foreign policy with what Obama has in mind misses the point completely of what Caroline is communicating. A new day dawning in America is what she expresses. Out with the old, and in with the new. That's all. Their comparison is silly in the realm of the mundane. It serves no purpose unless you are intent in misinterpreting Caroline's ideas.

Obama is being propelled forward by simple media marketing. Other than that, there is nothing there. No experience, no resume, no nuthin'.

Meanwhile, if one doubts the electoral system is completely corrupted, one only need to log on to Bev Harris site, and read about the fantastic goings on in New Hampshire.

Then, of course, we can completely disregard the "coincidence" of Wolfotwitz's new job, and Bush's proposed nuclear pact with Turkey, coming right on the heels of Sibel Edmonds publication of her accusations of high crimes and treason at the highest levels of our State Department.

We're screwed. Its obvious that we do not have the level of citizen awareness that will drive us to the streets in protest, and our window of opportunity is slamming shut with each and every fascist bit of Executive power that this treasonous monkey in the White House cedes himself with the complicity of the likes of this fucking coward Reid and the likes of Pelosi, Hillary or this Obama bit of paper mache.

Like I said, we're screwed.

Steve, you mischaracterize the Obama-Clinton choice as "mysticism and gut" vs. experience and practicality. Obama is about "having a vision for where the country needs to go . . . and then being able to mobilize and inspire the American people to get behind that agenda for change.” In reply, Clinton likened the job of President to that of a “chief executive officer” who has “to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy.” In other words motivating people vs. manipulating the system.

George Packer spells it out in his New Yorker piece: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/28/080128fa_fact_packer

The problem for me is that I don't really know where Obama will lead us, though his broad world view and community organizing experience suggest that his path could be a humane one. On the other hand, I see where Hillary is going and I don't particularly like it--a conventional foreign policy featuring more of the same in Iraq and the ME and a corporate centric domestic policy. And frankly Hillary probably does not have the inspirational skills to move the nation on any path but the one we're on. Obama at least offers the possibility that we can embark on a more enlightened path, though there are clearly no guarantees on this.

I'm about to stop reading this site because of your obama coverage. You can consider me unreasobable but I expect you to be fair. I don't read you for your, Obama hedging and subtle hillary promoting. I read you for your international wisdom.

Please stick to that.

I personally will not vote for hillary in the primary nor the national.

I just thought you should know you're turning peope DEEPLY off.

Thorin

Get your own god damned blog POA!

Whaddaya do, spend all god damned night composing these long winded diatribes only to dump them off-topic in comment sections the next day?

We don't read it. Make your cutting remarks short and sweet a minute after you've read the blog post. Your madness will then tend to stay on topic.

"Out with the old, and in with the new."

Saying it doesn't make it so. What is so "new" about the media marketing a candidate using fluff and empty attributions?

What has Obama actually DONE that is "new"?

And I love the way you Obama adherents conmpletely disregard his public statement that Bush has NOT exceded his Executive authority. But really, what do we expect the dissembling fake to say when attempting to justify his disdain for his oath of office?

Why in God's name would anyone vote for ANY candidate that has refused to pursue holding this Administration accountable for its crimes, much less some paper mache media sensation that denies any crimes have taken place?

"Make your cutting remarks short and sweet a minute after you've read the blog post."

Go screw yourself.

Is that short and sweet enough for you?

I sort of understand why you might feel uncomfortable with the JFK comparisons, but I don't think anyone is equating them in terms of policy. There is a certain anxiety out there about whether Obama the orator really matches up to Obama the performer, but compared with Kennedy, he seems very open about his personal life and how he makes decisions. The way he has represented himself and his experience seems quite honest. Have you read the two books that he actually wrote on his own? I really think that somebody like Obama would be much more open to the advice that people like you and others at the New America Foundation would have to offer. He would listen and probably take action on many of your compelling ideas.

Also, if there were a debate between just Hillary and Obama and I were given just one question to ask, it would go like this:

"So far, the message that has dominated your campaigns has been that one word--"Change". And you both would probably agree that in one way or another, your democratic opponent does actually stand for change. But let's flip this idea of change around. In what ways does your opponent represent "sameness" or continuity with the past?"

How on earth would Hillary answer that question?

Here's an idea Steve, ole boy.

Instead of telling us that you guys in Washington need to make sure that Huckabee, of all numbskulls, is surrounded by leveled headed foreign policy experts, why don't you tell us about who's in Obama's ear about foreign policy and who should be?

Then maybe you won't be so frightened or try to frighten us about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.

Both the last presidents, Clinton and Bush had no foreign policy experience, and both relied heavily on outside advice and upon their own worldview; one to fairly decent effect, the other to disasterous.

So tell us how Obama should staff his foreign policy advisers instead going into the outer limits to tells us about Huck's.

Hasn't Obama surrounded himself with a cadre of old Clinton administration advisers?

Please expand; this is your forte.

A President Like My Daddy

The Princess Royal of the Kennedy clan, who has herself accomplished nothing in life except being born to wealth and privilege, has draped her father�s moth-eaten cloak on Barack Obama, who, in her father�s White House, would have been a footman or cook. Say what you will about Obama, he got there himself without the benefit of a rich daddy or corrupt political machine. He may be more unprepared to be president and more disastrous for this country than was JFK, but we hope, at least, that he will be impervious to �love notes� from middle-aged political camp followers who are still trying to be influential without ever being relevant.

http://reviewofcuban-americanblogs.blogspot.com

Steve
I agree with you that a substantal black vote for Obama last night can send a danger signal not only to Latino but also white voters. This has been Bill Clinton's game all along, to paint Obama as a candidate for the blacks. Omaba must rise above all this and must win California (Hillary is winning New York) in addition to his ome state to win the nomination. He also needs to go to Latino voters and win them over.

However, I disagree with your comment on Caroline Kennedy's endorsement. I think this is a huge endorsement and it will help Obama in the reamining New England states and also bring more young voters to his camp. As far Kennedy's greatness, well nostalgia is nice but Kennedy almost caused a nuclear war over Cuba through his policies. But as he died young his charisma trumps any deficiencies of his Presidency.

apparently the 26 year old speech writer for obama has been pulling from kennedy and mlk speechs, so it is nice to see that it is having some effect on everyone on up to kennedys relatives! wonder what obama actually has to say without the help of the speech writers??

Thorin:

So, it seems you are saying that you will let another Bush clone take the White House in the general election if your candidate does not win the primary.

As my grandmother used to say: "You would cut off your nose just to spite your face".

I will vote for your candidate if he wins the primary. But I won't vote for him in the primary mainly because of your vitriolic diatribe. I won't vote for Hillary in the primary either. But I have to hand it to Hillary and Bill. They do their own fighting. They do not depend on a bunch of anonymous attack dogs to do their dirty work.

jim

"wonder what obama actually has to say without the help of the speech writers??"

After his telling statement about how high he sets the bar on Executive abuse, I doubt his handlers will let him adlib again.

Steve, I think that's a very good call on what a Kennedy comparison means.
I have found Obama's rhetoric on Pakistan blundering and reckless. Of all the Democrats, I think he is the most likely to lead us into a truly disastrous war.

Carroll dahling,

Imagine you are on a desert island and all you had was to choose amongst all the remaining viable presidential candidates now running who would be the most likely to come closest to any of the desired changes in American government you cherish, who would you choose?

And don't say you can't make your choice in such a public manner since it would sully your reputation for wanting Washington burnt to the ground so that we can all start over again, silly boy/girl (whichever).

"Imagine you are on a desert island and all you had was to choose amongst all the remaining viable presidential candidates now running who would be the most likely to come closest to any of the desired changes in American government you cherish, who would you choose?"

Ron Paul.

Without a doubt.

That might not be Carroll's answer, but it is the only answer based in the history and the long standing rhetoric of the individual candidates.

I'm with POA,

Saying something doesn't make it so.

None of what any of these candidates say doesn't make it so.

McCain's 100 year war; the Democrats health care; the Republicans Pro-Life and their promising to bring assault weapons back; the tax cuts promised by all.

Talk is cheap, and that's all they've got.

No matter who is running we are always voting for a pig in a poke.

They could all become changlings once in office; who knows.

We can't believe any of them; they are all conning us.

Except Ron Paul !! Yippeeee!

POA dahling,

"Viable" is the operative word in my post; viable meaning "having a reasonable chance of succeeding" in being nominated as their party's choice.

Ron Paul does not pass that threshold, dahling.

Choose again.

"Viable" is the operative word in my post; viable meaning "having a reasonable chance of succeeding" in being nominated as their party's choice."

"Ron Paul does not pass that threshold, dahling."

You're right. Ron Paul will NOT be nominated as the "party's choice". Simply put, the parties are no longer the voice of their consituents. Ron Paul is viable, but only as the "people's choice". And that too will not see fruition, as Ron Paul's message is being censored, marginalized, demonized, and buried by both parties in collusion with the media.

What amazes me is the abject ignorance and ovine obeisance of bleaters such as yourself, and a seemingly huge number of Americans, that are willing to continue to accept this electoral circus as valid or deserving of respect.

http://blackhillsportal.com/npps/story.cfm?id=2422

Multiple Errors In Louisiana Caucus Creates GOP Challenge

Ron Paul Wins Louisiana?

By Press Release

Ron Paul Campaign Files Caucus Challenge with Louisiana GOP

Multiple errors in process leave caucus results unresolved

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Yesterday, the Ron Paul presidential campaign filed a letter with the Louisiana Republican Party to contest the credentials of delegates to the state convention.

Under state party rules, campaigns have 72 hours from the end of the caucus to file such a contest. This contest was filed in response to multiple problems with the caucus process.

“The initial failure of the Louisiana GOP to properly determine who was and wasn’t eligible to vote threw this entire process into disarray,” said Ron Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “However, voter eligibility was just one of many irregularities with the caucus process. We are filing this contest to ensure that we can challenge the results if it appears that delegates were improperly selected.”

The Louisiana State GOP changed the rules at the eleventh hour to allow other candidates to file more delegates, even though there were plenty of delegates to compose full slates in each congressional district. At the time of the original January 10 deadline, Ron Paul had the largest number of delegates pledged to him. The party then changed the rules to give other candidates until January 12 to file more delegates.

In addition, due to mistakes by the Louisiana GOP, hundreds of voters were forced to file provisional ballots, including nearly 500 that could change the outcome of the election. According to the LA GOP, caucus locations relied on a voter list from November 1, 2007 or perhaps earlier despite the fact that under the caucus rules, voters need only have registered Republican before November 30, 2007.

There were even instances at the caucuses where state-certified Ron Paul delegates appearing on the ballot were forced to file a provisional ballot despite the fact they were pre-approved as delegates. For More Information ABC News has published an article on this issue.

For More Information on Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign you can visit www.RonPaul2008.com

DIM, you misunderstand the Pissed Off American. He is addressing the hype that Obama is receiving from a media in love who create an aura that Obama's words are gospel, and a-change is a-comin' in his MLK cadences.

And Mr. Pissed is offended, and rightly so, that his champion, Ron Paul, isn't getting the same attention as Obama or any of the others.

If the media would only envelope the masses with how Ron Paul would deal with the current economic crisis and how he would totally revamp the government and its relationship to the people, then Mr. Paul would truly ascend to the heights where the media placed Obama. A Savior of sorts.

But this is not to be, mainly because Paul is small in stature, less than common in looks, lacking in rhetorical flourish, although his ideas are shattering to the current American system and would truly bring a new day for all that would pale compared to what Obama is offering.

I will leave it to the Pissed Off American to describe the New America that Ron Paul would guide us to if only the media would give him the rightful exposure he deserves.

"I just thought you should know you're turning peope DEEPLY off."

You're mighty presumptive in your use of "we", and assuming you can speak for more than just yourself.

My age has gifted me with a few learned powers of observation. And I have found that arguments that require the shallow validation of imaginary adherents are seldom credible arguments.

I thank you for contributing to my body of knowledge, for absent the blather such as your own, I might never have learned to discount nonsense.

POA, dahling, wouldn't dare describe the New America that Ron Paul's domestic ideas would bring. Paul be talkin' all high and mighty about the War, but with that you all be getting a rip roarin' domestic stealth agenda that would put Bush's debacle to shame. Hell, if the media gave Paul maximum exposure to the full spectrum of his ideas it would destroy the man forever except with some fellow kook hangers on. The media does Paul a favor by not giving him the time of day.

Go ahead POA dahling, tell us what your man-crush Paul has in store for us on the domestic front. If the media is having mercy on him by not telling us, you should at least take up the banner. Or are you just all talk, not wanting to put some remedy to the perceived situation in howsoever small a forum.

Posted by Obama Mammy at January 27, 2008 01:11 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I will answer you later. Right now I can only imagine you as the dizzy girl who asked a male romance novelist how he wrote with such great understanding of women...he replied he imagines them as men and then subtracts all reason and logic.

Ron Paul's domestic strategies are laid out on his website, for any to read. I suggest that anyone curious enough to ask should also be intelligent enough to seek the answers.

Or is it just easier to engage in the gutless and slimey innuendo jackasses such as yourself seek to perpetuate??

I'm not buying it. Go slime someone else with your bullshit. And try to keep it down to one personnna, will you? It keeps the stink down.

Lay-off POA. He needs a whole night to write up all the goodies Ron Paul has in store for us on the "domestic front." If you try to cow him into responding pronto he will likely only rip spluttering into disparagements and curses. Leave him time to write up a Ron Paul Domestic Manifesto with its intended goals. He can do it tonight and it will be a relief from all his whining about how Paul is neglected. POA, you can finally do something about it, and make a difference.

Have a good night, my friend.

Steve: Obama is not your beloved Hagel. I think you are trying so hard to use reason, when so much of this involves preferences. Clearly, you like--no, love--Hagel, and many of us "get" Obama while others don't.

I think if you actually listened to what Obama says--rather than hear the silences of what you want him to say--then maybe you'll get it too. It really is the past versus future. My theory is that it's the year 1960 or so --those born before then don't see, or prefer, what those of as after 1961 see and prefer. Or are you younger than that? Just a theory I have based on those I know.

Thank you to the two (?) of you for the opportunity to post the link to Paul's website.

I mean hey, who can express his views better than the man himself?

Truly a novel idea, isn't it, actually researching a candidates position, before castigating him with gutless innuendo and transparently multiple personnas?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Ooops, too late, he has already ripped into spluttering disparagements and curses.

"My theory is that it's the year 1960 or so --those born before then don't see, or prefer, what those of as after 1961 see and prefer. Or are you younger than that?"

Yeah, my daughter is 22, and a rabid Obama supporter. Funny thing though, she can't tell me why. Everytime she tries, she talks of a change that she can't clearly define. Why? Because she does not have a clear grasp of where this nation truly is, how seriously special interests have undermined our security, and how little regard these "candidates" have shown for the rule of law, governmental accountability, and the will of the people. What she doesn't understand is that if these candidates stood for change, they would have stood thus years ago. To advocate for constructive change the "change" that is needed must be clearly defined and understood. Instead of the restoration of a representative government, the "change" being sold only pertains to diversionary feel good political postures that are seemingly altered from one moment to the next in order to conform to the talking point of the day.

"Ooops, too late, he has already ripped into spluttering disparagements and curses"

And what have you contributed to this thread.

Just curious.

Pissed, dude, you're a master of cut and paste. Why don't you show these bastards by cutting and pasting right from Mr. Paul's site and putting it in their face. Show'em, dude! They can't say nothing then and they'll all have to eventually apologize for their stupidity about Mr. Paul. Do it dude!

Wow, yet one more screen name. How many does this jackass have?

Caroline Kennedy compared Obama's ability to communicate and inspire with that of her father. She did not claim that he is JFK reincarnated. Thus your discussion of Kennedy's policy is off-the-mark.

Sometimes it's obvious that the Obama campaign peeves you. Have you endorsed Clinton yet? Do you intend to?

POA,

Why don't you believe what Obama says? Did you see his speech last night? He passionately lists that which he would change, and it is what the People cotton to and believe his sincerity. You think Obama's a bold faced liar?

And why do you believe what Paul tells you? It's just words; same as Obama, but without the passion.

Why would Paul be better in effecting his change agenda more than Obama his?

You seem to be just an old sour puss whose worldview is being decidedly abandoned by the children. It difficult to become old and have the world pass you by as they go onward to a better place that you can't understand. Happens to many an old man. Be thankful for your daughter, that she's involved and in love with an idea; her love and that expressed by millions of other youth will bring about the new day they seek. Let them have their day unto the new future now being birthed. Gracefully step aside and give them your blessing.

Your worldview of hatred is on its deathbed and you can do nothing about it but let fate take its course.

Out with the old, and in with the new.

Steve,

Was JFK a "hard-core Cold War hawk"?

No. I do not believe he was.

The history on this matter is very rich, very intricate, and deeply debated. But a good place to begin is with Kennedy's June 10, 1963 American University speech.

http://www.american.edu/media/speeches/Kennedy.htm

His plan to exit Vietnam by the end of 1965 is detailed here:

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html

His reaction to the nuclear war-fighting plans of the early 1960s is detailed here:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=5048

David Talbot's new book, Brothers, on JFK and RFK, is one I would recommend to those who would like to dig more deeply into this question.

JG

Steve, you remain the rational skeptic and policy wonk. Such people are necessary but they don't understand politics or social psychology. "The New Fontier" and "The Torch has passed to a New Generation" may not be powerful for you but they inspired a generation. Story or Mythology is what holds societies and entire civilizations together. Great political leaders understand that and are great story weavers who unite people in the Great Story of the journey of humankind on the planet. Obama is such a person. Joining our personal story with the societal and global story is what breaks us out of our individualist isolation and alienation and links us in common purpose. Don't underestimate that.
"Without vision the people perish." Proverbs

"I think that the battle is looking very close -- and that Denver should be fun. I'm going to get my accommodations lined up now."

Check out the Brown Palace and Oxford Hotels, Steve. Both are quite nice.

www.brownpalace.com/?src=ppc_google_denver
www.theoxfordhotel.com/

Obama is a natural enemy of Steve Clemons and his New America Foundation as Obama promises a clean sweep of the influence of lobbyist and think tank pressure. Steve might be way less influential and possibily out of a cush job if Obama ascends to the presidency. With Hillary it will be business in Washington as usual; lobbyist and think tanks will continue to thrive and expand in their influence.

Steve is understandably much more comfortable with anyone as President but Obama, and Steve should not be faulted since anyone in their right mind would display unease with someone who was threatening their livelihood.

"And why do you believe what Paul tells you? It's just words; same as Obama, but without the passion."

"Why would Paul be better in effecting his change agenda more than Obama his?"

Its simple really. Paul has not changed his rhetoric with the political winds, and has been steadfast in his advocations for years. And he specifies changes I believe in, mainly cutting Israel's purse strings, ceasing our destructive and self-defeating meddling in the affairs of other nations, and letting the individual states decide social domestic issues, such as abortion. By advocating for state's rights, Ron Paul is stating that he will not impose his own right to life beliefs on the citizenry of the United States. That means, that I can disagree with some of his positions and beliefs, but not worry about his positions and beliefs superceding the will of the majority. I live in California, and there is simply no way that a right to life agenda would survive here, because the overwhelming majority of Californians oppose the pro-life stance. Yet, I am sure, there are states where the majority would like to see abortion banned. And if that is the will of the majority, within a given state, why should the federal government be given license to overturn the will of the majority? We saw that happen here with prop 182, when the feds stepped in and superceded our will in regards to the immigration issue. Why the fuck am I paying federal taxes if the federal government refuses to recognize the wishes of the vast majority of Californians, including myself? They just pulled the same shit with this Johnson garbage in the EPA superceding Californians efforts to rein in the auto companiues disdain for our envuironment.

And your glowing testament to youth is pablum. Spouting that kind of horseshit, that says NOTHING, is hardly constructive. Interesting that will all this blustering crap on here about Obama, not a single one of you have mentioned any substantive or specific positions or platforms of change that Obama actually stands for.

Posted by Obama Mammy at January 27, 2008 01:11 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

O.K....now that I have stopped laughing I can answer you.

I don't have a candidate and don't know who I will vote for yet. Obama is a unknown since his record is so shallow and Hillary has her own drawbacks in my mind. You might as well call Obama's 'change" campaign the take a "chance" campaign because there is no trqck record in his career to date on the issues he talks about. In comparing Obama and Hillary, Obama is as much a product of the ILL. political backroom machine as Hillary is of the Clintonian political machine so I see no vast difference there except Obama is a newer member of the machine.

However I do tend to judge candidates by who they appeal to as followers...it gives me an idea of the kind of mentality their message attracts.
You and some of the other Obama-rama's strike me as Elvis fans frenzied by the music.
The comments of the Obama-rama's like you and others on here are like snide little high schoolers who can't discuss the pro and cons of candidates or the issues so they suck their little thumbs and throw fits...it doesn't make any one favor your candidate...just the opposite.

Nothing is more revealing about Obama than his supporters who show up here.

The best observation of the Obama "movement" was made by Pat Lang in NH...."The wildest thing I saw was an interview in which a white woman college student sobbed softly that "at last there was hope." She meant Obama. Hope of what? The end of days? The second coming? Free lunch? What?"

Busing in college students to caucuses to chant for Obama especially when this student population has been so totally missing in action on the Iraq issue which they made not a peep about tells me Obama is making use of those ignorant of reality and are just induldging themselves in some "movement" like a bunch of mindless groupies because Obama either can't or doesn't want to say to mature rational thinkers what he will do.

Now why don't you tell us how Obama's health care plan works and he is going to pay for it having to look it up on his site or exactly what his plan is to withdraw from Iraq and settle the Kurd Pakistan problem before it blows up or how is he going to address the capital- labor imbalance or the tax inequality between earned income and investment or settle the Isr-Pal conflict or what kind of regulation he intends to impose to prevent another finance and mortage meltdown or if he intends to change section 514 of ERISA to give the insured legal rights against insurers or how he intends to handle illegals and the border or if he intends to address the constant pifflering of SS to use for other things or his plan for reducing the trade deficit and creating more industry in the US or if he will change the tax laws regarding off shore companies or what his economic position is on how the Fed handles inflation and stagflation or deflation or his position on outsourcing historical government duties to private industry or his position on curtailing lobbying by special interest, or how he is going to pay for his trillion dollar aid to the world at large, ad nausum.

And try to be exact please and say something besides this will all be settled just fine by his "unity" preaching to the great uneducated, unthinking, unrealistic, uninformed and emotionally unstable groupies among the public looking for a cause to give them "meaning" for a while and by getting along with republicans and lobbist and and multinationals.

Go ahead...I want to hear it all...in detail.

The Caroline (and presumed Edward) Kennedy endorsements bring up two points, in my view:
1. No matter how you felt about what JFK's real legacy was...Obama is no JFK. After all, JFK was brought up breathing politics (including international politics); AND served in a way; AND served in the Senate. There is no comparison in terms of life experience and knowledge. And JFK was not even a heavyweight in those reguards in this own time. How low our standards have fallen.

2. I think most are looking at all these Democratic endorsements in a totally positive light for Obama; and i think that's a very shallow interpretation of what's going on. Reading only the headlines that others are typing, as it were; without looking into what's really going on behind them.
These (mostly) senior (older) Democrats would have no sway in a Hillary/Bill Administration; there's nothing in it, for them, in getting on that bandwagon early. But in an Administration headed by The Inexperienced Kid...... an Inexperienced Kid Who Would Be Oh So Grateful for their support in getting him elected..... he'd be dependent on them; these Seniors, with their (vast) experience, and dancing to their strings. And he'd never even know it was happening.
"Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill". And, in terms of getting things done politically - not media speeches, but really bringing about accomplishments politically - I would maintain he doesn't even have any demonstrated skill.

Piss,

You can curse at me, old man. It is what we expect from the bitter dying.

And don't you or your "has been" ilk try to snuff out our dream. It has happen that way more than once in America that dreams were killed by the ignorant old men!

Don't you dare!

"And don't you or your "has been" ilk try to snuff out our dream. It has happen that way more than once in America that dreams were killed by the ignorant old men!"

Thank you for so clearly underscoring Carroll's point.

Steve,

I think you need to go back and read Ms Kennedy's endorsement of Obama. She didn't prune or clip her father's legacy. Here statements are depicting what others have expressed to her regarding how Obama reminds them of JFK's appeal to them and the nation. Sure JFK was a man with faults and a man who made mistakes, but he was the man who gave the people hope and even though a cold war hawk, stood up the the crazies in our military and saw us through to a sane outcome in the Cuban Missle Crisis.

I appreciate what the Clinton's have done for the most part. But it is time to end the dynastic cycle of the Presidency and try to start fresh with a different perspective of the future which is not 90s.

It appears to me that Obama has some advisors such as Bresinski that you have admired and with your position in DC I am sure you can prevail on others to help guide Obama's foreign policy and bring up our standing in the world as a honest dealer on the world scene.

Cheers,

Jim

Carroll, aka POA, you are gonna have to vote for McCain pal. Or, abstain, vote present, and then try to tear apart everything Obama tries to do as President cause to hate him and hate the prospect of a New America. The poor in spirit shall always be with us. What you really hate is people being happy. You just a meanie, that's what you are! Meanie!

We will see tomorrow, won't we, when Hillary and Obnama stand up for the rule of law, and governmental accountability, by refusing to allow the Bush Administration to give immunity to the telecoms?

Or not. Something tells me BOTH of these posturing frauds will be missing in action. And the mewling little elves that have infected this thread will fire up another bong load and chant oohhhms to a dream none of them seem able to describe.

Wow, POA, you're really getting to them! GRIN. GOOD JOB!!!
Common sense IS awfully hard for some people. Better to hitch onto to "Change"....and "Hope" (hear the choir in the background..... up lights.....notice the softly glowing halo?.....)

Hahahahaha

Like Carroll, I'm having a hard time reading I've been laughing so much. Get REAL!

I'll be VERY interested to hear someone take up Carroll's challenge: Let's hear it -- what have you got....besides "Change" and "Hope" and halos???

And, el Doria (4:01 pm) ....whaaaa?

How's this....for starters?

March 16, 2007
THE PROBLEM WITH BARACK OBAMA'S ISRAEL POSE
by Joshua Frank

"Sen. Barack Obama isn't quite sure how he feels about the lopsided situation between Israel and Palestine. Less than two weeks after Obama gloated to AIPAC about his love for Israel, he unexpectedly admitted the truth while campaigning in Iowa recently. "[N]obody is suffering more than the Palestinian people..." said Obama, "the Israeli government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart..." The truth hurts indeed, and Obama has been feeling the wrath of the pro-Israel activists since his statement last week.

Nonetheless, Obama shouldn't be trusted on the issue. While Rep. Dennis Kucinich hired avid pro-Palestine advocate Noura Erakat to sit on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Obama has been backpedaling – assuring AIPAC and others that he is unwavering in his support for Israel's continued bullying of Iran and occupation of Palestine.

"[Iran] is a genuine threat" to the United States and Israel, expressed Obama at a forum sponsored by AIPAC on March 12 in Washington D.C., only one day after his lucid remarks in Iowa. At the event Obama also reiterated that he would not rule out the use of force in disarming Iran, a position shared by the other leading Democratic presidential contenders, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Earlier this month on March 2, Obama spoke at an AIPAC Policy Forum in Chicago where he clearly laid out his full stance on Israel, promising he would not alter the U.S./Israeli relationship. "[W]e must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs," he said. "This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza."

So while Obama admits that Palestinians suffer more than Israelis, he still won't do a damn thing to balance out the asymmetrical relationship. In fact, Obama has made it clear that U.S. taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for Israel's ever-growing arsenal of weapons and missiles if he is indeed elected president in 2008.

In Obama's March 2 speech, he even had the audacity to declare that "we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in the region, must end."

If Obama is truly interested in invoking U.N. Resolutions to prop up his case for a military assault on Iran, we may as well note the some 65 Resolutions the senator has blatantly ignored that condemn Israel's actions – past and present – including Resolution 242 which calls for the withdraw of "Israeli armed forces from territories occupied" during the Six-Day War of 1967.

Sen. Obama, despite his acknowledgment of Palestinian suffering, has little to offer those who recognize that lasting peace in the Middle East will only begin when the U.S. radically alters its relationship with Israel. Continued funding of Israel's illegal occupation won't end the violence – it'll only continue it."

Why can't you all see that Obama is wonderful and would be a joy to have as President. He's a dashing figure that shall make us all feel good about America again, and that's half the battle in these dark times. He's what progressives long for and what independents gravitate to. Even Republicans know his authenticity and are coming over. We all know what he stands for and need not list the particulars to satisfy the vindictive on the thread, those who void of hope and wish others to be as miserable as them. These types never turn from trying to bring others down. Pity them for being unable to feel what we know and see. We need to give Mr. Obama a try. At least with him we have tried to bring the country out of its tailspin and back up into the wild blue yonder. Yes We Can, and we will.

All that is needed is to have belief in a leader and then help and support him to achieve that which he sets out to do. Same as it ever was.

ROFLMAO!!!! Thanks roofer. The prerequisite qualification of a typical Obama supporter is apparently an ability to say absolutely NOTHING in as many words as possible.

That, and a whole handful of screen names.

By the way, are you all (?) so starstruck that you can't see how much wieght you've just given to the last sentence in Steve's commentary?

Posted by takes one to know one at January 27, 2008 12:23 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Actually everyone reads POA's posts, including Steve.
POA keeps pointing out the real crux of the matter in all our problems. And most on here agree with his take which is that government is broken, corrupted...and it must be true because all of a sudden the candidates have started parroting the same thing...'government is broken", corrupted, beyond repair and has to be changed, etc."

Except POA was saying it long, long before any of the candidates. And except that he really means it whereas most of the candidates don't and are just jerking their groupies around.

I hate my country. It is going down. All the candidates are shit. War criminals rule. Its all over. The economy sucks. There is no hope ....... Why don't I just kill myself? God, I hate Israel! Oh, MFG do I hate Israel! and Obama with all that sickeningly sweet rama lama ding dong dingbat talk of Can't We All Get along Rodney King bullshit! and teeny boppers shreiking; blond teeny boppers at that. Gaaawd! And OMFG do I HAATE Israel!

Hey you jerks, Ted Kennedy is endorsing Obama now!

What do you have to say about that! Uh?

I hate my country. It is going down. All the candidates are shit. War criminals rule. Its all over. The economy sucks. There is no hope ....... Why don't I just kill myself? God, I hate Israel! Oh, MFG do I hate Israel! and Obama with all that sickeningly sweet rama lama ding dong dingbat talk of Can't We All Get along Rodney King bullshit! and teeny boppers shreiking; blond teeny boppers at that. Gaaawd! And OMFG do I HAATE Israel!

Posted by NOT at January 27, 2008 05:13 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hummm...we have been joined by the Israeli student union for Obama I see.
Our old friend MP has evidently been replaced...too bad, at least MP made sense in some of his arguements now and then.

This song sums up how I feel about Barack and the hope he brings, please listen,

Sincerely,
Carrie

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

You'd think, after reading Carroll's comment about the average Obama supporter that lands at this site, they would attempt some level of maturity in their responses. Yet, lo and behold, their posts have become increasingly immature.

I thought Obama was running for President, not Principal.

Hey you jerks, Ted Kennedy is endorsing Obama now!

What do you have to say about that! Uh?

Posted by Ah Ha! at January 27, 2008 05:21 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Since about 90% of the country was in a rage at Ted over his support of illegal immigration I imagine Ted's endorsement will lose Obama a lot of votes among independents and repubs, and in the West and South.

Carrie, you poor thing. Do me a favor, and google up some WTC images, and put mommy's credit card away for a week. Perhaps a little reality, coupled with weaning, might shock a little sense into you.

Actually, Carroll, although the democrats are touted as being pro illegal, I think you would find the vast majjority of us are against illegal immigration, and it is in fact our leadership that is refusing to assume the platform of its constituency. California is mostly liberal, but our past balloting history shows an overwhelming disastisfaction with illegal immigration. The only way this dissatisfaction has been countered is by changing the actual demographics within the state by continuing to allow an influx of latinos, mainly through federal meddling in what should be an exercise of state's rights. Honestly, I think this issue transcends party lines on the people's level. Certainly, I know few people that advocate for illegal immigration, except the obscenely wealthy agri-business clientele whose homes I work on on a regular basis, and they are almost exclusively staunch Conservatives, and flaming Republicans.

Why Mr. Pissed do you play the fear card on me with your WTC mention. Are you a Republican? I do not fear, I have hope and Barack. Thank you for listening to my song.

Sincerely,
Carrie

POA

Actually I do know that. I think almost everyone, except special bizness interest, regardless of party, thinks something has to be done about unchecked illegal immigration.

As an example of California, I was in San Diego
as few years ago and got into conversations with some local people at a dinner and everything was about "illegal immigration"..and these were people who could and probably did benefit from cheap household and yard labor and they still were incensed about the huge number of illegals in Calif.

It's not the cultural or security angle that worries me, it's the economic and political angle. Just another group of ethnics or minorities the politicans will use for their own purpose and also enact bad policies for to get their support in elections.

"Why Mr. Pissed do you play the fear card on me with your WTC mention. Are you a Republican? I do not fear, I have hope and Barack. Thank you for listening to my song"

Well, Twinkletoes, its just that you seem to be detached from reality, and do not seem to grasp what deep shit this country is truly in. And not from the contrived monsters this traitor Bush and these puppets like Obama present us with. What your poor little new age horseshit pretty please listen to my song naivete refuses to grasp is that the threat lurks in the halls of Congress, in the Senate, in the White House, and in the contrived reality that our media seeks to sell us with neatly packaged trojan horses, like this paper mache fabrication, Obama, or this status quo AIPAC pimp, Hillary.

Mr. Pissed you are sure a nasty man. You can use crap without having you the S word, can't you? Yes it's crap because of Bush but Barack can get us back to goodness! Can't you see! A new way is coming that everybody will like. You will like it too Mr. Pissed, you will, I can tell.

Sincerely,
Carrie

So much for the new, improved comments section.

Steve,
Please ban POA. You would be doing your readers a huge favor.
The comments sections are impossible to read as long as he stays.

Well, if I was an Obama campaign staffer, I would be seriously concerned about the quality of the debate offered here in support of Obama. You people didn't do Obama any favors today.

I would imagine there are more than a few responsible and articulate Obama supporters out there that have cringed while witnessing the shallow and childish horseshit many of you dished out today.

Of course, I could be wrong, because you would think some of these "responsible and articulate Obama supporters" would have spoken up, in an effort to quiet the inane babbling and empty nonsense that this thread is littered with.

Maybe, as far as supporters go, you're the cream of the crop, and what you lack in brains you more than make up for in numbers. God help us if thats the case, because that makes Mickey Mouse electable, if marketed with the same brand of media hype.

http://tinyurl.com/33botd

The Greatest Grassroots Campaign in Political History: IGNORED BY BIG MEDIA

January 26th, 2008

The greatest grassroots campaign in the history of American politics has been summarily ignored and shunned by the large media.

Yes, you read that right. The greatest grassroots campaign in the HISTORY OF AMERICAN POLITICS. IGNORED BY THE MEDIA.

The Ron Paul campaign is centered around a man who is not a media sensation or a media creation. The campaign is centered around an individual who does not seek power and control over others. The campaign is centered around an individual who avoids shadiness and corruption like the plague. A man who is honest, has integrity, and cares fundamentally about America and the amazing freedoms that were granted when the Revolutionaries of 1776 broke off from the yoke of oppressive, central government. These men asserted all individuals’ natural rights.

So a grassroots campaign has grown around this man who fights for the protection of our natural rights via the respect of the U.S. Constitution. The job of the president is to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. The Constitution protects our rights as free individuals and limits the government from oppressively entering into our lives and controlling us on a whim.

The grassroots campaign that grew around the support of Ron Paul has done everything in their power to earn a respectable place in the national consciousness. Through individual efforts, the Ron Paul grassroots campaign raised $4 million in a single day in early November. Then, in mid-December, the growing group broke the ALL-TIME SINGLE DAY RECORD bringing in $6 million in one 24 hour period. This was reported in the media, but was it reported in the amazing way it should have been? Did this vault Ron Paul into the key “front runners circle” that the large media has had such immense control over? The answer is no. The media summarily ignored Ron Paul and his campaign very soon thereafter.

Ron Paul’s supporters have organized to dominate most local straw polls around the country. They have dominated nearly every online poll and both online and text polls after every single Republican debate. Has this vaulted Ron Paul into the media “front runners circle”? No. They ignore him and figuratively spit on his hard working supporters.

When Ron Paul does get a rare interview or report, at times he is treated fairly, but most often he has been treated like a second class citizen, called a “long shot”, dismissed as a “kook” and treated generally in a way unbecoming of any respectable interviewer. Like I said, there are exceptions, but the rule is patently ugly treatment by a more and more despicable traditional media.

The mis-treatment and lack of respect have forced the grassroots campaign onto the internet and into the streets. The Ron Paul campaign dominates MySpace, Youtube, Digg, Facebook and far outpaces any other candidate in terms of Meetup groups and Meetup members. Does this get reported? No. Ron Paul has signed up over 12,000 volunteers as local precinct coordinators to walk their local neighborhoods passing out literature and getting to know their neighbors. Reported? No.

Ron Paul’s supporters have organized hundreds of marches, thousands of sign wavings, numerous other small fundraisers, as well as starting hundreds of websites dedicated to the race. Ron Paul’s website is the most visited out of any campaign in the Republican race and goes toe-to-toe with Obama’s out of any campaign period. Reported? Not much, if at all.

Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign has seen a tremendous groundswell of independent support form many hundreds of thousands of very passionate, intelligent and caring supporters across the country. Lovers of America, patriots of this great country, individuals dedicated to the Constitution, restrained government, and who care about our natural unalienable rights as independent human beings. This amazing groundswell has been shunned and pushed to the side by the large traditional media. Supporters have been told “he can’t win” and he has been kept out of the big media “winner’s circle”. It is a sham and a travesty.

I am here today to tell you that the Ron Paul 2008 campaign has witnessed the greatest grassroots support in the history of American politics. I am also here to tell you that the large media has ignored and battled against this campaign.

These two facts should tell you something. If you care about your unalienable rights as a free citizen, you should seriously consider supporting Ron Paul. If you care about these rights as well as the government protecting them rather than stripping them away, you should be very annoyed and upset with the old media. I know I am amazed and pretty pissed. From what I have observed, the media do not care about your rights and they do not care about you. If you care about America, you will think about finding an alternative or demanding a change.

The future of freedom and limited government rest in your hands. So far, the media have shown what side they are on.

In liberty,

Kemp Moyer

Given the level of rancor, mutual contemp, disrespect, and shameless schilling that is represented in these comments, perhaps it is time to turn off the Comments option again, Steve.

Given the level of rancor, mutual contempt, disrespect, and shameless schilling that is represented in these comments, perhaps it is time to turn off the Comments option again, Steve.

Posted by Bill R. at January 27, 2008 11:06 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't think that is necesary. It looks to me that this was cross posted at HuffPo or TPM and attracted one or more (very young) Obama spporters who took offense.
Or some ntiwits against Obama who wanted to make his supporters look bad.
They will move on when this thread dies.

Right, Carroll. These aren't the usual commentors. I agree.
They've essentially said nothing. (Fitting.) Just whined a lot.
This too shall pass.

Agree about the sanitisation of JFK, though it doesn't approach St.Ronald level. Barak Obama (and Teddy Kennedy) were more astute about Iraq than JFK was about Vietnam.

when will POA and Carroll move on?

When will you stop spamming this blog with multiple screen names and your incessant bullshit?

Today is the day. Will Hillary and Obama work to stop Bush from giving the telecoms immunity, or will they bend over and dole out the lubricant? My guess is the latter.

poa----your paranoia is amazing....I only have one screen name...I used to enjoy reading your posts, though it seems your comments have become angry and bitter regarding the elections...

How many posts do you have on this thread?
How many of those posts are angry?
How many of your posts attack others or their ideas?

What does any of that accomplish? This blog has so much potential, it's very disappointing when the venom of a few ruin the ability to have genuine interaction and discussion with other readers...

Yeah right. Sell it elsewhere. Do you think we're idiots here? You might convince someone if your feigned concern for this blog targeted the asinine drivel that you have littered this blog with, (using a number of different personnas), but your "when will POA and Carroll move on" removed any doubt I had. Shove it, troll.

Disagree strongly, Steve, that JFK was a "hard core Cold War hawk". At the Bay of Pigs, he refused to use US military personnel or USAF to assist the anti-Castro exile team. A real Cold Warrior would have gone along with the CIA's desperate request to inject the US military overtly to save a disaster in the making. It took guts to tell them No, but Kennedy did, then sought afterward to reform the irresponsible and incompetent leadership at that agency -- but the entrenched Cold Warriors at CIA had other ideas ...

He refused to send US troops into Laos early in his admin, something a real Cold Warrior like Ike had recommended. He consistently refused to send US combat troops to VNam, and by Oct '63 had formally committed to a withdrawal of all military advisors by the end of '65. A real Cold Warrior would likely have at least committed combat units to Nam, which the JCS repeatedly asked him to do and which LBJ soon did.

The Missile Crisis: A real Cold Warrior would have taken the first hawkish advice of top national security aides and Pentagon, and reacted with an attack plus invasion. JFK wisely declined to act precipitously with a knee-jerk military response, which we now know would have been disastrous. His ultimate blockade/negotiate solution was one which reflected the mind of a man not wedded to simplistic, traditional hawkish Cold War solutions.

The Test Ban Treaty: No real Cold Warrior would have been too happy with a deal with the evil Soviets.

The American Univ "Peace" Speech: Again, no real Cold Warrior would have extended the olive branch to the USSR in such an open and sincere way.

Had he lived, a second term likely would have led to major changes at the top at CIA (Bobby was seriously considered) and further reform with the military and JCS. But he couldn't do much by way of major housecleaning given not even 3 years in power and the sort of powerful forces he was up aga