New Civilization News: "Yes We Can"    
 "Yes We Can"66 comments
picture14 Jan 2008 @ 19:59, by Paul Quintanilla

Is he for real? John Kerry seems to think so, closely echoing his message when he endorsed him the other day in South Carolina.

Is he, Barack Obama, a new Lincoln or FDR or is he merely another Huey Long? He is, undoubtedly, one of the best political orators who has come along in a long, long time. He is, in fact, an extraordinary orator.

The first time I saw him (on TV) was at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was fine, I thought, turning out an energetic and spirited speech. But didn’t actually say much. Chris Matthews, who oversaw the proceedings for his cable network, went wild predicting a new major political superstar had arrived. As usual, Matthews’ enthusiasms seemed overblown. The kind of stuff reflective of San Francisco’s lively saloon scene, when the local writers and newspapermen gather. A lot of fun, but mostly gas. Those who love language sometimes like it colorful, and Matthews always seeks to turn its levels up. He often markets himself on that.

So I pretty much forgot Obama, remembering only that the “pundocracy” had anointed him. Predicting he was a new star on the scene. Someone they would watch.

Then 2007 came along. And there were still murmurs out there that Obama was quite impressive on stage. Still I paid little attention. We know how overblown all this media stuff can be. And that they have an undue exagerated influence which is unattached to reality.

Then I finally saw him offer a full campaign speech. He was serious, he was hugely dignified, he treated his theme with the eloquent sobriety it deserved. I was impressed. This was no “smirking chimp” speech with our orator delivering it giggling and moronically winking reassuringly in a false manner. Obviously lying through his teeth.

Okay, chalk one up for Obama. He’s a serious man. What was lacking from the speech, though, was any real substance. It sounded good but he didn’t actually say much. Though he delivered it in quite an impressive manner. One which was troubling, because the suspicion lingered there may not have actually been anything there. That its sentiments may have merely come straight off the shelf.

But what if he meant it?

Then there was New Hampshire. January 8, 2008. And Obama came on stage after his narrow defeat to Hillary Clinton smiling as if in victory and gave a speech which can only be fairly described as transcendent. And it may have had this powerful impact on me because it was almost totally unexpected.

It was unlike anything I ever heard before. And I have been thinking about it deeply ever since, wondering what to make of it.

The speech started out inauspiciously enough, with Obama displaying the grace of both a victor and a loser, calmly congratulating Hillary for her close primary victory. Responding frequently to the love of the audience, an audience, we should perhaps recall, which was mostly white. And then he went into his delivery, offering the same speech, perhaps, he had prepared to give if he had won. No matter. Not one word need have been changed: in victory or close defeat. He would be moving on. And nothing came to an end in New Hampshire. The speech was about the future, fully appropriate to that moment.

It lasted about twelve minutes. And as he approached the end he went into his “yes we can” theme. Repeating it. But repeating that simple phrase with a passion which resounded throughout that packed hall of supporters. Inflecting his voice as if it were an instrument directly expressing his soul, bringing forth a deep beauty.

His delivery had an aspect of the black preacher about it (Obama’s background is not actually like most black Americans’): and listening closely the rhythms were slightly evocative of Dr. Martin Luther King. His delivery was polished, refined, possessing great class in all the good senses of the word. This was a poet speaking. An oracle. A man whose passionate vision touched everyone there with an uplifting eloquence.

Once again he said little that was specific, offering his concepts in a broad, general sweep. But his message was, “yes we can.” His message was inspirational. He made hope real, alive, possible. And when we look out at our country today, following seven years of presidential giddiness and lies leading on toward greater fear and uncertainty, what better message can there be?

For isn’t hope - “yes we can” - the most significant spiritual prescription our nation needs today? Isn’t a sense of collective hope the logical beginning? A candidate who establishes decent goals and expectations and a possible future to work for? A beginning and roadmap out of the current morass?

If so, we may have a great man in Obama seeking the presidency. If not, if Obama turns out to be a fake, another “vain, empty, and bullying body of our time,” as Norman Mailer decades ago described so many candidates seeking the presidency, then we are truly damned. Our country is truly cursed.

During these quadrennial nominating seasons I’m often deeply touched by the aspirations and hopes so many American voters put into their choices of candidates. How willing the candidates are to say anything to gain that hope and faith. The Hillarys and Mitt Romneys who will be whatever you want them to be in order to obtain your vote. Who soon forget all that faith and hope and human need which was put into their candidacies once they are elected.

Who can not be touched by that? Especially today, with so many enormous problems facing us? Some of them truly existential?

Let’s hope Obama is the real thing. For now I am deeply curious to see what kind of journey he will take this country on. Not long before he died, Norman Mailer once again rebuked our current president for routinely debasing the language. Mailer, among all our great writers, was deeply conscious of how a president’s use of language could influence our country, its national outlook and spirit. I wish Mailer were alive to hear Obama. I don’t think he would be disappointed.

"Yes We Can"

[< Back] [New Civilization News]



14 Jan 2008 @ 20:24 by Quinty @ : Ralph Nader on Obama

The Politics of the Smooth Mood



The Obamarama Campaign Express was roaring down a New Hampshire highway near Nashua when an aide spotted the sprawling No Holds Barred Sports Bar. "Let's stop the bus," she urged, "and do some random schmoozing."

Obama and his entourage poured out of the bus and headed for the front door, over which hung a large sign: "HOME OF THE POLI-BEER: WHERE BOOZE, POLITICS AND SPORTS MIX IT UP!"

Inside the packed bar, the guys and gals were gathering for the Big Game to start. Before the game, however, there was an hour for political talk time. Their eyes widened in amazement when they saw Barack, bounding through the doorway with his secret service detail.

The bar had a big pit, with a huge crackling fireplace, where the patrons have their regular give and take. Obama was ready for some of that.

He started: "I stand for change. They said we set our sights too high in Iowa. They said now is not the time. I proved the cynics wrong in corn country and I'll prove them wrong in the granite state. To show you I mean it, no speech, go at me. Our time for change has come."

Guy number one-"Ok, Barack, you're going for the power in the Big House, the big companies already have the power, how ya gonna make us little people powerful?"

Obama-"Stay tuned. One leap at a time. We are one people. Get me there first."

Gal number one-"You say, CHANGE, well how are you going to cut the bloated military budget full of vast waste, fraud and abuse, when you've specifically said you'll 'expand and modernize the military?' Why, it's already half or more of the government's operating budget, squeezing programs for children, health and all that. I'm an accountant and I know numbers."

Obama-"Exactly. Our time for change has come. I'm going to change the old weapons with new weapons and the old soldiers with the new soldiers. That's real change-at the grass roots."

Guy number two-"You don't seem to have any rough edges, Barack."

Obama-"It's all about the mood, dude."

The crowd was getting agitated and the questions came faster and faster.

"Why are you for nuclear power with taxpayer guarantees?"

"Will you oppose Congress getting pay raises, pensions and health insurance until the American people get the same?"

"Do you favor repealing the anti-union nightmare-the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947?"

"How can you talk about change and take gobs of campaign money from the big corporate lawyers and bosses?"

Obama, smiling: "It's ALL about the mood, dudes. All the rest are details you can look up on my We are choosing hope over fear."

Gal number two-"Ok, answer this one that probably isn't on your website. When are you going to meet with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and campaign in the black ghettos-say Harlem or Watts?"

Obama-"Whoaa, give that tough lady a Poli-beer on me! We are one nation."

Guy number three (with an Obama face mask)-"I'm the old Obama, remember me? I was for single-payer, full medicare for everyone. I was strongly for Palestinian rights and for replacing NAFTA and WTO, not for tweaking them. I was for taxing the super-rich and defending class actions. I was for capping credit-card and loan shark interest rates. What happened to me?"

Obama-"Well, didn't I tell you that I stand for CHANGE?"

Gal number three-"You seem to be for everyone, but not everyone is for everyone. Some are against everyone. Tell me, are the big corporations, the greedy defense contractors, drug, oil and insurance companies, starting to quake in their boots at the thought that you are now the front-runner?"

Obama, lifting his chin-"Well, Ma'am, we haven't ordered our seismometer yet."

Oooohs and boos float around the pit. A few start drifting away.

Guy number four-"You're one of those smart Haavard lawyers, Barack. You were a constitutional law teacher. You were against the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. So, why aren't you putting two and two together-impeachment of the war criminals in the White House followed by conviction in the Senate?"

Obama-"You don't understand (testily), impeachment talk is just more of the same old Washington politics. I stand for change. No need to point fingers. We are one people."

Gal number four-"Hello, Barack. I'm Hermaphrodite and I luv your blended politics of harmony."

Obama-"Great! Then how about a quick dance around the bar before we have to leave," he said, humming to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic-"We are choosing unity over division, we're sending a powerful message, that change is a coming to America, it is all about the mood, dude"

Ralph Nader is the author of The Seventeen Traditions  

14 Jan 2008 @ 20:39 by Quinty @ : What are we supposed to make of Nader's

They sound too crafted to me. Most of the folks at sports bars are not as well prepared as these "regulars" are. Their questions are too polished, carefully phrased, and fully thought out to sound completely spontaneous. Who has such questions at the ready when a candidate wanders in off the street into a bar?

Okay, so Nader puts Obama into a fictive setting. The criticisms remain the same. But let's at least be clear about where we're at. And what actually happened. Nor do I believe Obama's responses would have been as limp and mindless as the ones Nader puts into his mouth. Or as callous. The whole thing rings untrue.

That’s my skeptical view..... or is it merely wishful?  

15 Jan 2008 @ 22:45 by b : Aw Quinty buddy
It is all fixed. Obama will run with Hillary in the end and Bill C will become UN SecGen in 2010. All just the preamble for the great American depression happening now while the rest of the world prospers. Our wealth was given away to be redistributed by Sovs and Chicoms signed and sealed away by previous Presidents with Russia and China and in accordance with the wishes of the 56 Muslim countries and the world power that swallowed all of the others. This current President is totally complicit. Obama loves white people. Just ask him.  

18 Jan 2008 @ 02:38 by Elle @ : Obama
Hi Quinty. Obama really doesn't say anything much, or how he will implement this great change he professes. I think he's all hype. If he were ugly, had darker skin, think people would be so wild about him? Sorry, but this is coming down to a race thing, again, and people all hysterical over Obama but for the wrong reasons. I already mailed in my ballot with a WRITE-IN candidate...Al Gore heh heh. I have nothing to lose by doing this and everything to win should more people do this and Gore is on the ballot in November. Wouldn't that be fun?  

20 Jan 2008 @ 00:08 by Quinty @ : It’s hard to refute
what you say, Elle.

Obama is most certainly not running as a "black" candidate representing black issues, like a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. If he did it would be political suicide.

I would like to see an overtly progressive candidate run. One who could bring his past in progressive cause - civil rights, for one - to the fore as a reason for voting for him. Realistically, though, that won't happen. Such a candidate could never win.

In a way I'm glad Obama is not making race an issue. The presidency should transcend race and gender, for that matter. I don’t think identity politics has a place in most major elections.

Though I hope Obama doesn’t forget these basic concerns if he becomes president. (Putting politics first that could happen.)

We spend much time in this country debating phantasmagoric issues. Huckabee recently startled us with his proposition to make the Constitution conform to the Bible. The "war on terrorism" has been completely distorted, turning something necessary into something vile. Many still refuse to believe science's claims regarding the environment. The “English only” and “illegal immigrant” issues are an ugly expression of nativism, a desire to keep the US white. A gut reaction against “the other.”

Where will Obama take us?

We don't really know, do we? Yesterday's allusion to Ronald Reagan was disturbing, too. Though I'm going to play Devil's advocate and venture a small theory. One supporting the idea that Obama may offer us a transcendent presidency. (Which may mean I may have to suffer some satire. Okay, so be it.)

For if there is a transcendent quality in the direction Obama wants to take the country in it is normal for him to look at many approaches, ways to proceed. Including the unorthodox. That is how genuine creativity works.

If Gore were in the race I would have probably decided a long time ago. I think Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois would make a good president too. The other night when I heard what Obama said about Reagan I immediately resolved to vote for Edwards. And Edwards offered an excellent rebuttal to Obama’s praise.

But if Obama expressed creative courage, as he prepares to actually lead, with that observation then my curiosity is even more piqued.

Perhaps this is merely an expression of pessimism. And I’m merely looking for the most interesting candidate to lead us off the cliff. Frankly, I see little reason to hope. Unless one of the candidates surprises us.

Did you ever read Thorton Wilder’s “By the Skin of our Teeth?” In it he argues that we always seem to be saved from the precipice by “the skin of our teeth.” Will we be so lucky again?  

20 Jan 2008 @ 01:23 by Elle @ : Obama
I liked Edwards, too, more than Hillary. If he ends up being on the ballot (and not Gore), he might get my vote. Bringing up Reagen (who ruined so much in his lifetime) was a huge mistake. I don't know why, to this day, people praise him. No, Obama is not running as a black man, but people are perceiving it as that, and Oprah's involvment I think helps to solidify that. I watched an interview of people at a mall and some African-American people said they're voting for Obama only because he's black. They didn't know anything about him or the other candidates. That is the problem - lack of awareness and education and concern for what's going on and how it affects us. Yes, I also heard that crap from Huckabee about the Constitution and Bible - that is frightening. Where will Obama take us? Who knows is right. I wonder if even he knows. lol. You still can do a write-in vote for Gore ;-) "The Skin of our Teeth" - oh man, that takes me back to the 1970s when I read it and we did the play. Good comparison there. You know these quotes, I'm sure: President Jimmy Carter once said, "The American people deserve a government as good as they are." I think Roosevelt, Paine and Jefferson also had some good quotes on the topic. And Hitler: "What luck for rulers that men do not think." That's our own undoing, every time, and every time AFTER people vote for these losers, they cry and have conspiracy theories run amok, as if they had no say in it at all.  

20 Jan 2008 @ 01:29 by Elle @ : corruption
If I might add another comment here on this topic: I am still a little stunned that the media is making a huge deal out of Hillary's slight emotional display, saying she cried (when she didn't). Then they say that is what caused her to win in N.H. My response to that is that Hillary allowed her heart to speak, and when people do that, it touches others. I think people want a human and humane president, with a heart and mind. Not just a tough guy. Women should not have to be masculinated in order to be acceptable and to run for office. We have lacked the feminine qualities in our government long enough. Have you seen the article written by Erica Jong about Hillary? She thinks the same as I do. I'm posting it here for you - hope that's okay with you. If not, you can always delete it.

We Deserve What We Get (From the Huffington Post)
This column is not about Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards. The truth is if I had the choice I'd vote for Dennis Kucinich because he's against the war, for the impeachment of war criminals in government, smart on the environment and the economy, and he has a sense of humor about UFOS. He's not afraid to joke about 'em for fear he'll be labeled a nutcase -- as indeed he was.

But I don't have that option. Kucinich represents my views, but he only got 1% in New Hampshire. Too bad.

I want to talk not about candidates but about our media turning every presidential election into a high school popularity contest. And we let them get away with it. And we don't stop Rupert Murdoch, Clear Channel, Disney, GE, Sumner Redstone and a few others from owning all the media all the time.

Our magazines and newspapers are so dumbed down that they never discuss issues, only stereotype or attack or puff up candidates -- and all for the most idiotic things -- like their marriages, which in truth we know nothing about -- or their weight or their clothes or their hair. They don't discuss brains, intelligence, psychological maturity, but only who's up or down in the polls, cuter in photos, who misted up, cried or didn't cry, said "my friends" like Reagan or mimicked Bill Clinton's style or JFK's or whomever's. Our press is a disgrace.

When Al Gore was a candidate, he was mocked and slimed by our stupid press. And look who we got? Cheneybush! Now Hillary's being slimed for being a woman, for being the wife of, for being smart, for being political, for being old, for not having left her husband -- just as she'd be slimed if she had left her husband. She has baggage -- like any old broad -- because the truth is that the older you are the more baggage you have. So there's ageism too. And a new fresh face, with less baggage, is like the latest starlet in Hollywood. We never heard about Edwards' ideas until his wife got cancer. We heard about his haircuts!

We never discuss psychological depth because hey, who cares if the president's a bomb-happy dry-drunk trying to play out an Oedipal war with his father? We never talk about people being tested in power or how steady they are or whether they read books or understand what they read because we judge them on their looks. Or one idiotic sound byte, taken out of context.

We had gazillions of columns about Al Gore's weight gain and growing a beard -- I was even asked to write one for the New York Times -- and I obliged because that's all the news that's fit to print and I like shooting my mouth off on the Op-Ed page as much as anyone. Besides women writers are only drafted for the most trivial subjects. We comment on style not substance, beards not policy, clothes and shoes and chick lit and cooking. The men get the big topics like war, though women have the most to lose--like their children whom they carried and nursed and suckled and love more than themselves--as of course do many men.

Bush was considered a good ole boy and Gore was a considered a nerd. Now Edwards cares too much about his hair, Hillary "cried" in the press--though she didn't cry in reality. But we live in this parallel universe where there is no reality. Obama? Who knows who he is? A brilliant writer, yes, a cute young guy, yes, a progressive, we think. But who really knows? I give him the benefit of the doubt. Why not? But what a stupid way to choose a President!

If Eleanor Roosevelt were alive and running, they'd talk about her big teeth and her hoity toity accent. If JFK were alive and running, they'd reveal his affair with Marilyn and slander his wife for it. If Jackie O were alive and running, they'd say she fucked Onassis -- which she did -- while she was married to JFK. If Plato were alive and running, they'd say he was gay--though many Greeks were bisexual and thought nothing of it.

So kids, if you elect a President of the United States like you elected the President of the GO in High School, you deserve what you get.  

21 Jan 2008 @ 00:07 by quinty : Thanks for
the post. Yes, I agree, the Infotainment State surely rolls on and on. And trivialities reign. That's in the nature of democracy. We have freedom of the press: “free for whoever owns one.” Money and power too often call the shots.

The scene in Vegas yesterday must have been quite amazing, out there as the desert sun rose. Casting its pristine pearly pink on the Eiffel Tower standing up there out in the middle of nowhere. Hollow eyed gamblers repetitively pulling on their slot machines having sat there all night, their arms and bodies having stiffened into a repetitive rhythm.

And who's there to greet all the Casino workers coming in to work? In the fresh air of an early Nevada morning? Bill Clinton, going from one major casino to another down the Strip, shaking hands. Getting the cooks and dish washers and maids all stirred up as they start another day. What magic Clinton has! And according to the press all those casino workers were utterly enthralled by Bill's presence, remembering how good times once were during his presidency. How peaceful and sane the world seemed. That's politics.

So a lot of them voted for Hillary and there were accusations of irregularities from both sides. Who knows? They do things their own way out there on the desert. Things the hierarchy may not even approve of.

Grass roots democracy indeed. Now Hillary is at Abyssinia Baptist Church in New York. Why do I resent that? Blacks are supposed to love Bill Clinton. Even those who should know better such as Toni Morrison and Maya Angelou extol his praises. But what did he ever do for Blacks? What did he ever do, beside feel their pain?

There is only one way of combating BS. That is by openly exposing it and deriding it. And hoping there are enough intelligent people out there who can see your point. If not, you are lost anyway. Barack complained today about competing with two Clintons, one a former president of the United States. Claiming an unfair advantage as if one Clinton were enough.

Well, now that you mention it...... Go Barack!

(An ironic sense of fairness and unfairness is a very good sign.)  

21 Jan 2008 @ 01:01 by Elle @ : hahaha
well, Quinty, that's a sad and funny statement you made at the end of your post. Not one leader will ever have it all, not one leader ever had it all. Why people expect they would is irrational. You talk about spouses - what about Gulliani's three marriages and his family in turmoil? At least the Clintons raised a child right and they have a good relationship. The Bush family has had lots of problems through the years. It will always be something. But, what matters is how that individual conducts themselves as a public representative. Look at their track records. Bill Clinton is an amazing speaker. I've seen him a few times in public speaking, very close up to the man. He does have charisma. I may not agree with all of his ideas, but he is doing some good things re: treatment for AIDS and with tsunami relief.  

21 Jan 2008 @ 17:40 by Quinty @ : Spouses?

I'm not certain what you're refering to? Some of my writing must not have been clear, since I made no reference to spouses.

Bill Clinton certainly has charisma, more than his wife does. She appears pale and small after he speaks. Obama, in a witty manner, was merely complaining about having to compete with both of them. Not just Hillary. And in a way he's right, since Bill Clinton is prevented by the Constitution from running again.  

22 Jan 2008 @ 00:47 by Quinty @ : LBJ

I have often wondered why JFK enjoys a close place in the hearts of so many black Americans when LBJ actually did so much more for them. LBJ was serious about his "war on poverty" and against racism. In Texas, true enough, he plaid the racist game to be elected to the Senate. But no other president in modern history did so much for American blacks.

Here's Bill Moyers relating (quite briefly) what actually happened.

{link:|Bill Moyers}  

22 Jan 2008 @ 09:48 by Elle @ : yep
LBJ did a lot for African-Amerians and Native Americans. But, the war in Vietnam...sorry, he could have ended it.

About spouses, I understood what you meant - I just took it a step further about Bill and Hillary. I think Obama shouldn't whine about it. It's petty and makes him look weak. The Clintons are married and that's the way it it or not. She's running for office. In office,no matter who is the president, and if they are married, all of us are in some way dealing with their spouse (even if it's not openly discussed).

In relation to our upcoming presidential elections, I am asking people to read these two articles as they have to do with women's freedom in America. The first article is by Erica Jong, and the second one is by {link:|Gloria Feldt}  

22 Jan 2008 @ 17:57 by quinty : Barack and Bill

Well, I have to sympathize with Barack Obama. I wouldn't want to face the Clinton machine either. Frankly, I think Hillary and Bill would say or do anything to get her elected. That they have no scruples whatsoever. And Bill is a heavyweight who has been throwing some round houses. Perhaps because the world seemed relatively sane, compared to Bush’s world, under Clinton many people love him.

But I can see why Obama may complain. After all, the Constitution forbids a president from running a third time. And this appears like a Hillary and Bill ticket. Is this legal, can they get away with it? Yes. Of course.

But is it fair? Well, somehow the odds seem lopsided. While Obama has an intelligent and charming wife she's no former president. And what will Bill do if Hillary is elected? Mope around the White House? I would like to see him gone. His third way, "triangulation" and DLC approach was a regressive influence on the country. In foreign policy all he cared about was free trade, giving us NAFTA. And he constantly backed down to the right. Lanni Gueneer and Joycelan Elders (sp?) are two good examples.

Hillary appears to be totally owned by the corporations. She says she's not, but then she's capable of saying absolutely anything. And has. When she lost me was when she went pandering to the Christian right a year or two ago. These people are driving normal people crazy with their idiotic religious beliefs regarding abortion, creationism, church and state etc. and because it appeared they could decide the outcome of a presidential election there Hillary was feeling their pain. The Clintons are good at that: feeling others’ pain. But they rarely do anything about it.

No doubt about it, if Hillary is elected she will be boss. And Bill may remain somewhere in the background. Will Hillary surprise us, and give us the powerful progressive administration she sometimes promises? We don't really know, do we?

LBJ was quite a mixed bag, a very complicated man, who lacked the character to admit he was wrong about Vietnam. His generals lied to him (Westmoreland) and he wanted them to lie to him. At least he had the decency to withdraw from the 1968 presidential election. Whereas Bush, on the other hand, is hoping to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, which is what he always wanted in the first place.

Inevitably much will be made of Obama's race and Hillary's gender. After all, this is something new in American politics. But I think the presidency is too important to include any form of identity politics. Nor should it be decided by race or gender. Hillary is not running (except, of course, when it suits her) as a woman nor Obama as a black. I think that's the way it should be.  

22 Jan 2008 @ 20:30 by vaxen : Frogs and Princes
"Society is built on a careful balance of thinkers and non-thinkers. Society relies on a few thinkers to break the rules and bring innovation, but at the same time relies on non-thinkers to perform the daily tasks that keep society alive. Business relies on a few people to bring innovation and on millions of non-thinkers to buy it. Capitalism, communism, fascism [globalism] all rely on people not to think too much, otherwise the system would become highly unstable. If people thought, McDonalds and Coca Cola would be out of business, and nobody would listen to the Beatles or watch Hollywood hits. And probably very few people would work as hard as they do. It would be total anarchy. Not only there exist different levels of consciousness, but society (and possibly nature at large) depends on a delicate balance of those levels." -Piero Scaruffi

"...‘our rulers’...are engaged in the manipulation of symbols. We must consider ourselves a symbolic, semantic class of life, and cannot cease from being so those who control the symbols rule us. "Bankers, priests, lawyers, politicians, [and news media] constitute one class [of our rulers] and work together. They do not produce any values but manipulate the values produced by others, and often pass signs for no value at all. Scientists and teachers also comprise a ruling class. They produce the main values mankind has, but, at present, they do not realize this. They are, in the main, ruled by the cunning methods of the first class." - Korzybski  

22 Jan 2008 @ 21:03 by Elle @ : Bill
I heard Bill Clinton speak on a few occasions about being the first husband and people asked him, jokingly, if he'd be part of stuff like the Easter egg roll at the White House. He seriously answered them, YES, he really would like to be part of these things he wasn't able to be such a part of before, to enjoy them. He has no problem with it. And he has his own stuff going on as well. Anyway, that is no reason to elect or not elect Hillary lol Aren't you concered about Obama's wife as first lady?  

22 Jan 2008 @ 21:47 by Qunty @ : Why should I
be concerned about Obama's wife?

Well, I hope Hillary isn't like Bill. Another triangulating member of the DLC faithful.

She does seem to come on as a twofer, with Bill as part of the package. If she becomes president she may tell him to stay out on the White House lawn rolling those Easter eggs. Somehow I doubt he would want to keep his hands completely off. He may have sufficient male ego to want to be listened to by his wife. I think Hillary is strong enough to go her own way though. Question is, how truly different are they? Will Hillary cut her own way forward leaving Bill behind?

I’ve seen enough of Bill Clinton, and the Clintons. I’m in no mood for another 8 years. (Will the real Hillary please stand up?)

Sometimes a good spouse is helpful. Eleanor Roosevelt often reminded Franklin he had to do the right thing. Occasionally he did. Michele Obama is a classy woman and would be an asset in the White House. At least I think so.  

23 Jan 2008 @ 17:36 by Qunty @ : Maureen Dowd on Bill and Hillary

Did anyone see Hillary arrogantly, snidely, in so cool and superior a manner, put Barack down again yesterday? The day after the rough and tumble Black Caucus/CNN debate? Once more fudging, remolding facts and simple truth to suit herself?

The two Clintons are indeed a tag team joined at the hip. Bill's job is to wear Barack down, psych him out, drive him nuts. And once down in the mud with them, where the Clintons feel at home, help Hillary to come out on top. For both Clintons are long experienced and masters at the art of mud flinging.

Barack is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He can not simply ignore this two pronged attack, one Bill and Hillary have made so personal. If Barack attacks back - brings up Bill's credibility: "the meaning of is is;” “ I did not have sex with that woman;" then he will lose all those Democrats who love Clinton. He will destroy the party. If he does nothing then he will appear undecisive and weak.

Keep your dignity, man, keep your focus. Keep your eye on the prize. The Clintons are scum. And the entire world will know it. I just hope in time.

Here's Maureen Dowd in today's NY Times.....

Two Against One

Published: January 23, 2008

If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.

If he has to preside in this state as the former first black president stopping the would-be first black president, so be it.

The Clintons — or “the 2-headed monster,” as the The New York Post dubbed the tag team that clawed out wins in New Hampshire and Nevada — always go where they need to go, no matter the collateral damage. Even if the damage is to themselves and their party.

Bill’s transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy.

After Bill’s success trolling the casinos on the Las Vegas Strip, Hillary handed off South Carolina and flew to California and other Super Tuesday states. The Big Dog relished playing the candidate again, wearing a Technicolor orange tie and sweeping across the state with the mute Chelsea.

He tried to convey the impression that they were running against The Man, and with classic Clintonian self-pity, grumbled that Barack Obama had all the advantages.

When he was asked yesterday if he would feel bad standing in the way of the first black president, he said no. “I’m not standing in his way,” he said. “I think Hillary would be a better president” who’s “ready to do the job on the first day.” He added: “No one has a right to be president, including Hillary. Keep in mind, in the last two primaries, we ran as an underdog.” He rewrote the facts, saying that “no one thought she could win” in New Hampshire, even though she originally had had a substantial lead.

He said of Obama: “I hope I get a chance to vote for him some day.” And that day, of course, would be after Hillary’s eight years; it’s her turn now because Bill owes her. “I think it would be just as much a change, and some people think more, to have the first woman president as to have the first African-American president,” he said.

Bad Bill had been roughing up Obama so much that Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina suggested that he might want to “chill.” On a conference call with reporters yesterday, the former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, tut-tutted that the “incredible distortions” of the political beast were “not keeping with the image of a former president.”

Jonathan Alter reported in Newsweek that Senator Edward Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois congressman and former Clinton aide, have heatedly told Bill “that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Senator Barack Obama.”

In the Myrtle Beach debate Monday night, Obama was fed up with being double-teamed by the Clintons. He finally used attack lines that his strategists had urged him to use against Hillary for months. “It was as though all the e-mails were backed up,” said one.

When Hillary tried once more to take Obama’s remarks about Ronald Reagan out of context, making it seem as though Obama had praised Reagan’s policies, he turned sarcastic about getting two distortionists for the price of one.

“I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes,” he snapped at Hillary, obviously entrapped and pysched-out by the Clinton duo.

On a conference call with reporters yesterday morning, Obama did not back off from his more aggressive, if defensive, stance. The Clintons, he said “spent the last month attacking me in ways that are not accurate. At some point, it’s important for me to answer.” Recalling that Hillary had called mixing it up the “fun” part of politics, he said: “I don’t think it’s the fun part to fudge the truth.”

Bill has merged with his wife totally now, talking about “we” and “us.” “I never did anything major without discussing it with her,” he told a crowd here. “We’ve been having this conversation since we first met in 1971, and I don’t think we’ll stop now.” He suggested as First Lad that “I can help to sell the domestic program.”

It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line. She handed over South Carolina to him, knowing that her support here is largely derivative.

At the Greenville event, Bill brought up Obama’s joking reference to him in the debate, about how Obama would have to see whether Bill was a good dancer before deciding whether he was the first black president.

Bill, naturally, turned it into a competition. “I would be willing to engage in a dancing competition with him, even though he’s much younger and thinner than I am,” he said. “If I’m going to get in one of these brother contests,” he added, “at least I should be entitled to an age allowance.”

He said, “I kind of like seeing Barack and Hillary fighting.”

“How great is this?” he said. “Neither of them has to be a little wind-up doll who’s supposed to behave in a certain way. They’re real people, flesh and blood people. They have differences.”

And if he has anything to say about it, and he will, they’ll be fighting till the last dog dies.  

23 Jan 2008 @ 23:49 by vaxen : Space Invaders:
Space Invaders: Five Million Aliens for Hillary

Will José Crow Voter ID Laws Pick Our President?

by Greg Palast
Thursday, January 10, 2008

State Representative Russell Pearce of Mesa Arizona has warned us:

“There is a massive effort under way to register illegal aliens in this country.”

How many? According to the Congressman’s office, there are five million: Democrats, he says, who are not good Americans - they’re Mexicans!

Really?! Holy Cow! The Senator has uncovered a conspiracy to flood the voter rolls with Brown Hordes who’ve swum the Rio Grande just for a chance to vote for Hillary Clinton?!

Thank the Lord for vigilant citizens like Senator Pearce. His efforts, along with the work of other patriotic (Republican) politicians,successfully stopped 300,000 voters from obtaining ballots in 2004 - because these voters had brought the wrong ID to the polls. New ID laws in Arizona and half a dozen states blocked these voters at the polling-house door. Others with “wrong” ID’s were handed what are called ‘provisional’ ballots - which were then not counted.  

23 Jan 2008 @ 23:58 by vaxen : And...
Confirmed: Vote Fraud in New Hampshire
Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire are circulating after Hillary Clinton reversed a mammoth pre-polling deficit to defeat Barack Obama with the aid of Diebold electronic voting machines, while confirmed votes for Ron Paul in the Sutton district were not even counted ... READ MORE

Dead Silence in the Brain

by Mack White

Sixty-four years ago this month, six million Americans became unwitting subjects in an experiment in psychological warfare.

It was the night before Halloween, 1938. At 8 p.m. CST, the Mercury Radio on the Air began broadcasting Orson Welles' radio adaptation of H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds. As is now well known, the story was presented as if it were breaking news, with bulletins so realistic that an estimated one million people believed the world was actually under attack by Martians. Of that number, thousands succumbed to outright panic, not waiting to hear Welles' explanation at the end of the program that it had all been a Halloween prank, but fleeing into the night to escape the alien invaders.

Obama as orator? Ha, he sounds like a squaw-king chicken! Even with Brzezinsky in tow as 'advisor.' And I see that Wolfowitz is back on the payroll at the State Department thanks to Rice Crispy! And you still think your vote matters? ;)  

24 Jan 2008 @ 01:20 by Elle @ : voting
Yes, votes do count, just as NOT voting counts. Since you don't vote, what are you complaining about? If everybody voted, then that would be amazingly powerful.  

24 Jan 2008 @ 05:02 by vaxen : There are...
many ways to vote. And it isn't me doing any complaining. Bushco and all the rest don't bother me. Diebold? Votes count? Unh hunh. You get that from? And you get that I don't vote from where? And, incidentally, NOT voting can be considered a vote.

"AGI springs into existence but keeps a low profile. The lag time involved in trying to effect change in the real world (or some other inscrutable motivation) prompts the AGI society of mind to focus its efforts on building some really kick-ass meta-worlds which bear truly excellent fruit. The meta-worlds prove so productive and fulfilling to their residents that the increasingly god-like AGIs never feel any need to interact with the glacial minds of meat monkey's stuck on stupid." - AGI

And something else to "think" about:

Mind Control and EM Wave
Polarization Transductions

©Copyright 1999 by T.E. Bearden, USA  

24 Jan 2008 @ 07:00 by Elle @ : voting
I used to think that not voting was a vote, but it's really not. It is the lack of making a decision, and then leaving what the outcome is in the hands of others. It is not empowering, in my opinion. If you don't prefer any of them, then you can write in your own, as I have done. If you do vote, then you'd have to own up to your choice, but maybe that's hard for some people to do.  

24 Jan 2008 @ 09:03 by Elle @ : an article
Thought you might find this article of interest - by Rick Jacobs: Why Al Gore is Not President  

24 Jan 2008 @ 18:14 by vaxen : Not voting...
because there is no one to vote for isn't the same as not voting out of apathy. Know what a 14th amendment 'citizen' really is? To condone Fascism in any of it's forms is wrong unless, of course, you're a Fascist.

This Government has been corrupted inside and outside over the course of a very long time. Just because you vote for someone you think you get the choice to vote for doesn't mean that you do really make any decisions at all. Read the declaration of Independence.

There is an unsung majority in this country who one day will rise up and throw off the chains of this horrid system of enslavement. That won't be done through some corrupt 'voting' system where one company controls the machines used to 'vote' for a jaded candidacy of any ilk!

The new laws on gun control? Why do you think the 'masters' brewed them up? Cause people, real people, are tired of the lies and the candied apples called candidates! The whole voting process in this country is absurd, totally!

Freedom isn't free and it doesn't come with a corrupt vote for a corrupted politician either! Happy 'Die-Bolding...' And if you think any of those slap happy goon-clowns that are running will change a damned thing then find out who owns the Federal Reserve system of fraud and define usury and question 'them' about the 'national' debt and your 'place' in the scheme of things! Debt slave...

And Obama writes to the U.N. Council reprimanding them over Gaza? Whoopdie friggin do! Minstrel, maybe...orator? For whom? For whom doth that bell toll? It tolls for thee! Ever read 'Tar Baby?'

"Unfortunately, this campaign shows just how silly things have gotten. Former President Clinton has made himself into a midget by serving not as statesman, but as attack dog. And while I like Senator Obama's message of hope, I want to know what's really inside, what he really believes at core and how he'll transform that upbeat message into action in one of the most complex and daunting times in our history. John Edwards has a consistent message that resonates, but unfortunately, not in the media.

"Al Gore chose wisely. He has sacrificed enough. And even so, he continues to lead on all of the issues that matter to our country and our world. All of them. In a week or a few months, we'll have a nominee. We'll all be told to rally around the winner for the sake of unity and because the alternative is so horrible. I guess it's a modern fantasy to imagine we'd have a candidate for president who is not just the lesser of a few evils, but who really combines hope, experience, creativity and wisdom. I know some believe that those candidates are out there now; I hope they are right." - The Article Elle suggested

"Knowledge is Truth and the Truth Shall Set You Free."

Unfortunately truth is relative and it in and of itself will never set one free and knowledge is data which is mostly 'static.' Applying what you 'know' can get you just the opposite of freedom and "... freedoms's just another word for nothing left to lose."

I think people must stop looking to 'be led' and start leading themselves out of Egypt where they are naught but 'contented cows' led to the slaughter.

You might also contemplate the meaning of individual sovereignty of the kind mentioned by 'the Founding Fathers' of this nation many of whom were 'slave owners.' Of course it is an ancient 'biblical' practice.

Debt slavery comes with the Babylonian System of Commerce (Federal Reserve system of fraud/usury and the present international central banking system!) under which you slave and toil away unto this very day whose puppets are...the runners in this race for 'president!' Who, unfortunately, are the lackeys of the ones running the 'system.'

Oh, and I have Al's CD "An Inconveniant Truth." Should have been called "Inconveniant Half Truths." And we know what Goebbels said about 'the big lie' don't we?

I look forward to a real 'grassroots' movement outside the White House Corruptoration and all it's lackeys and servitors. A real movement of the people who realise that America became great as a Republic and NOT as a Democracy. The 'private sector' doesn't vote in the 'staged' for profit by profit inc., "pseudo elections." The 'private sector' is off limits to the UNITED STATES Corporation (Did you know it is a private corporation?)!

You see, the Republic still stands...outside of Washington District of Criminals and those of us who benefit from it retain our sovereignty and do not kow tow to the reigning CEO in any way. We are not 14th amendment citizens with 'civil rights!' We are individual sovereigns with un a-LIEN-able rights! Those are rights unto which no LIEN can be attatched according to the real laws governing this planet!

A real Democracy, of whatever sort, needs 100% participation within which to function correctly in a well balanced manner. Just when did America become a Democracy? NOT EVER! All Democracies, ever, have become what they are all destined to become...Fascist Dictatorships!

Here is Rama Rama Obama's brand new bag/blog:

Orator or Oreo cookie? Hillarious 'Doppelganger' Clinton also has a brand new bag/blog...which I'd link you to here but I don't like women in 'pantsuits' trying to be men. I like real women being themselves.  

24 Jan 2008 @ 19:16 by bushman : Hmm,
And vote for the wrong persons can probably put you on the no fly list, as in many countries if you vote for the non ruleing party they come and kill you, as if that makes your vote count. My problem is even if every American did vote, we have no proof who really won, the system does not work, other than to make you think you did some patriotic duty, none of it can be prooved. We cant trust the counters when they are paid by the system or by some religious agenda, unless you personaly count the votes and see for yourself what the count really was or is. Then still, it comes to faith that everything is being done by the book, which is nothing but an illusion till you see it with your own eyes. My personal view is if more than 50% dont vote then there is something wrong, and the election should be done over with all new canidates until more than 50% accualy go and vote. That means no government till such time more than 50% vote. If its really up to the people then let the people be the government, and as we can see the peoples vote just dosnt matter to our government at all. Well if it doesnt work, make sure it looks like it does or at the very least sparkles and looks pretty, thats what most Americans think and live by, "If it don't go, chrome it"  

24 Jan 2008 @ 20:05 by vaxen : The real Governors:
Heh, heh...astute observation bushman. Chrome it! Like old 'chrome dome' Giuliani, 911, TWOT, Fed Res, all of the ugly American duck soup chrome job blow job. The whole thing is sickening...for real! We don't 'vote' for it...we 'vote' against it with our blood and with our lives that some day we too might sing: "We shall overcome..."

Yabba Dabba Doo!

Ace R. Hayes: New York Mob at Mena

America is losing its mind. The two-party system has been utterly homogenized by corrupt money. The mob and Mossad have cut a deal with Wall Street and the CIA to run the world as a global plantation for the benefit of the global plutocracy. Only impoverished presses like the PFP, some talk radio and the Internet are yet outside the hegemonic power of transnational corporate fascism. However, when the Imperial pigs succeed in driving 80 percent of the world into the new serfdom, they will probably wish they had not let their greed glands run wild. When the middle class discovers that they are part of the impoverished and imprisoned rather than the privileged, they will lead the "underclass" in a revolution against the plutocracy and its gun thugs. Failure to deal with the Mena cesspool will continue to erode the credibility of a terminally corrupt governing class.

"...It was unlike anything I ever heard before. And I have been thinking about it deeply ever since, wondering what to make of it." - Q  

27 Jan 2008 @ 10:13 by Elle @ : Obama
You know what, Quinty? Obama knew, going in, that Hillary was already in the campaign. Then he complained afterwards? Too bad for him. Obama is very ego-driven and ambitious, and the more he talks, the less I like him. He is all empty talk.  

27 Jan 2008 @ 10:20 by Elle @ : vax
And vax - finally figured it out, did ya, after realizing the truth your flirty comment about Elle being one of your favorite names oooo I'm still laughing over that one.  

27 Jan 2008 @ 18:16 by Quinty @ : Gee, Elle,
it comes down to personalities now.

If Obama is a fake then he's truly diabolical, for he has faked that which can not be faked. And there is an aspect of transcendence of ego in his approach toward the future. Which is very new.

I really don't know if Hillary would make a good president or not. But, yes, I find the Clintons detestable. Hillary's arrogant presumption that the presidency belongs to her. Her artificiality. Her inability to ever be straightforward with the American public.

Will Obama succeed if he becomes president? On the one hand he has a lack of experience, on the other he may actually pull off that transcendence he is following. Our choices today are very poor and, frankly, if we go off a cliff, and it appears we are headed in that direction, out of sheer curiosity I would go with Obama. For he is truly an artist, in the genuine sense: a man working out a transcendent vision. And that's not something that can be faked. Though Hillary is most transparent.

I'm curious why you hold "ambition" against Obama? And Hillary is not ambitious? And Bill never was? And because Hillary has been campaigning for years to be president (and she treats the presidency as an entitlement) no one else should be allowed to enter into the race? That's the implication in what you have said. What’s more, Obama has a right to complain: Bill has been as arrogant and dishonest about him and his past as Hillary. They play rough, the Clintons do. Even McCain has braced himself (in remarks he made a night or two ago) for a dirty campaign following the Clintons' exploits in South Carolina.  

27 Jan 2008 @ 18:33 by Quinty @ : Obama
is either the King of Mountebanks or offering a truly transcendent vision.

The other night, as I listened to some talk radio, a rightwing commentator was complaining about how "stupid" Obama is. (Hillary is so obviously a cynical fake that it's easy to go after her.) That one on Obama caught me by surprise, since, after all, no one has widely brought up that accusation against him yet. After all, top of his class at the Harvard Law School and Editor of the Review, usually firmly establishes at least that one bona fide.

But why not? Why not see Obama's intelligence? For we live in a world which is often blind. And brilliance can pass by undetected by many persons out there. It happens all the time. Not to mention the transcendence artists and philosophers pursue.

History is full of examples of great artists unrecognized in their lifetimes. Bach was totally out of fashion throughout his life and it wasn't until the early nineteenth century, during the Romantic period, that his genius became recognized.

Now what I'm saying may sound odd and overblown to some of you. But Obama has shown these spiritual traits, characteristics. What will be come of all this? I don't know.

And, what's more, I may be wrong. I may be blind. I may be only making a fool of myself. But once seen that which is seen is certainly there, whether it fails or not in the future. Unless, of course, I’m all wrong.  

27 Jan 2008 @ 19:14 by vaxen : Comes down to...
lots more than just 'personalities,' quinty...
Take a look at the candidates' advisors (The whole rotten lot of them including Mr. "I don't use corporate lobbyists" Edwards.) if you really want to see what is being Diebolded behind the scenes...

Democracy Now! - Audio and Transcript

Independent journalist Allan Nairn and American Conservative correspondent Kelley Beaucar Vlahos discuss a little-addressed facet of the 2008 campaign: many of the top advisers to leading presidential candidates are ex-U.S. officials involved in atrocities around the world.

Advisers to Hillary Rodham Clinton include many former top officials in President Clinton’s administration: former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Senator Barack Obama’s list includes President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross.

Rudolph Giuliani’s advisers include Norman Podhoretz, one of the fathers of the neoconservative movement. John McCain’s list of official and formal policy advisers includes former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, General Colin Powell, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. One of Mitt Romney’s top advisers is Cofer Black, the former CIA official who now serves as vice chair of Blackwater Worldwide. Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Elizabeth is advising Fred Thompson.

As for Mike Huckabee, it’s not clear. In December, Huckabee listed former UN Ambassador John Bolton as someone with whom he either has “spoken or will continue to speak,” but Bolton then revealed the two had never spoken. Huckabee also named Richard Allen, but the former National Security Adviser also admitted he had never spoken to Huckabee.

Alan Nairn's Blog "News and Comment"

Laughing is good, Elle... ;)  

27 Jan 2008 @ 20:31 by Elle @ : Quinty
Quinty, what I'm saying is that Obama isn't saying anything that hasn't already been said by other candidates forever. I don't see anything new or different about him, I don't see anything spiritual about him. Maybe you can point out how he's being spiritual? I think anybody running for office has to be ambitious, Quinty, but it overpowers some more than others. You see the high of a power trip in their eyes, such as what I saw in Obama's eyes last night (that wasn't just joy at winning S.C., which doesn't say much, anyway).
I already said that I am for Al Gore, and then Edwards would be my second choice. I'm not all gung-ho for Hillary, but I don't hate her and I think she has good qualities. It is too bad that she was railroaded for many years with her health plan and was forced to make concessions, but she's still trying. And Vax has a good point that it's not only personalities - it's the whole package of who is working with the candidates.  

27 Jan 2008 @ 20:50 by Quinty @ : Points
well made, Elle.

Well, we'll see......  

27 Jan 2008 @ 21:20 by quinty : Actually
while I don't care for Ross, who's biased toward Israel, Brzezinski has been good on the Iraq war (though as a hardliner I think he influenced Carter badly) and Richard Clarke is a sympathetic figure. Who howled out against Bush's lies and distortions early on and took some blame for the failures.

No, my curiosity is piqued. What will Obama bring us? For he expresses personal qualities which can’t be faked. Not even Edmund Booth himself could create such a personage. Unless, of course, Barack is the King of Mountebanks.

Edwards is out of the running, though he may hope to remain an influence in the final outcome. And perhaps find a place on the ticket?

Hillary is a cynical hack. Obama a green idealist. And Edwards an untried populist. If Kucinich had come on and appeared like Mario Cuomo he may have gone far.

Have you seen Al Gore recently? When he left office the first thing he did was grow a beard. As VP he became terribly stiff. Playing second fiddle, especially to the Clintons, didn't suit him. So he's been a "recovering politician" ever since and that beard, I think, was an attempt to become real again. He was on TV recently, a little fatter, extremely intellectual in his manner, and much more natural in appearance. His facial features aren’t as stiff as they used to be. How do we know he won't run for president? He came out the other day in favor of gay marriage.

Unfortunately, in the United States it is difficult for a serious candidate to run for president. But the crop on the Republican side goes beyond the phantasmagoric, what with their emphasis on "Islamo fascism" and "illegal aliens." Oh yeah, they recognize our real problems all right.

If it's a Clinton/Romney ticket (Romney is even a bigger phony than Hillary. He'll never live down having been governor of Massachusetts) I'm moving to Canada. That is if in spite of being an American they'll have me. What's more, the northern regions may be rather nice once global warming fully hits.  

27 Jan 2008 @ 21:27 by quinty : Yeah.
the Neocons are front and center among the Republican candidates.

One would think they would have had enough. But if we are in a thousand year war against Islamo fascism then I suppose proud warriors are required. The base, the Republican base, apparently truly believes "if we don't fight them there we'll have to fight them here."

In spite of Bush's failures and disgraces these candidates (excepting Ron Paul... Any others?) want to "stay the course." And to them it doesn't matter how many die, how much destruction there is, how many billions wasted so long as we finally "win."

Yeap, these colors don't run alright.  

27 Jan 2008 @ 21:47 by Elle @ : Quinty
Ross knows what's going on in the Middle East, he's no phoney, and what's wrong with helping Israel survive? This is an important matter. I don't think Ross is biased, he knows the region, he knows the people, but some people in America don't want to hear it because THEY are biased against Israel. I wonder who the Christian right will vote for, because many of them support Israel. Maybe McCain. And yet, there is more to the elections than Israel.

I think people are tired of Bush's generally poor communication skills, a new face that can talk (Obama) no matter what it's saying is impressive lol. I see a element of euphoria in the people rooting for Obama, and it's like hypnosis, in a way. It's not based on anything real - so I'm surprised you're talking about him not being a fake. The man hasn't said anything real, yet. Just offers up hope and lingo that tries to manipulate people emotionally. I don't trust that about him. I don't want just nice words.

Gore is a real man, a good person, he has intellect and heart, he has a conscience and is conscious, and for me that is what makes a good leader.

As far as the people currently backing a candidate, that can change. I wonder how you feel about Ted Kennedy backing Obama?  

27 Jan 2008 @ 22:01 by Elle @ : and
If more people got to know Al Gore a few years ago, instead of making fun of him and making him out to be what he was not, I am sure he'd be president. Who cares if he has a beard or he gained a few pounds? Is it all about looks, or substance for you?  

27 Jan 2008 @ 22:20 by Elle @ : this isn't fake
Suspected Islamic extremists were planning attacks in Spain, Germany, France, Britain and Portugal, according to an informant, Spain's El Pais newspaper reports. Subways were preferred targets because access by emergency crews would be difficult, the paper reports.

This is a real threat to the U.S., as well. We need to have a president who knows how to deal with this kind of thinking and violence. Obama is not that man, in my opinion.  

28 Jan 2008 @ 01:42 by Quinty @ : Just for the record
my comments regarding Gore had no relationship to your interpretation.

I hope Kennedy's backing Obama helps him.

There is a threat from terrorists. The Neocon and Republican/Bush response though is paranoid. A myth, like the "domino theory" in Vietnam. The far right is prone to think that way. But that's another matter......  

28 Jan 2008 @ 03:24 by vaxen : Yeah...
White House terrorists! And global warming? You mean a new 'U.N.' global 'tax' on carbon emissions don't you? Cause that IS what the great hoax is about.

Brzezinsky is a practitioner of "the Great Game" philosophy, ideal. His major work can be found here: Download 'Brzezinski, Zbigniew - The Grand Chessboard' - free ebook

Obama is just another dupe in a long line of Dupes. They are all a long shot from Ribbono Shel Olam. Best 'Democracy' money can buy. Of course what I mean by Democracy is the 'legislative Democracy' known as the UNITED STATES. It isn't the same thing as 'The Republic.'

The difference is one of individual Sovereignty as opposed to debt slavery and 14th Amendment 'citizenship.' Same thing. Registering to vote in it makes you of it. Like Athens it too will die a long death and take many with it.

An inconveniant truth is that the Sun is heating up and that's not all - many are predicting a 'New Ice Age' so regardless of what propaganda and politicisation you prefer to believe in the "long war" is going to go on, is very profitable, and will be fought asymmetrically on the/in the battle-field called your mind. Get used to it...have fun.  

28 Jan 2008 @ 03:36 by Elle @ : News?
I predicted a new Ice Age over 30 years ago when I was in high school hahaha, and I've known the sun has been getting hotter for the past 15 years, it's become whiter in color. This is not news to many people.

How about that Bill Gates and Bono and the head of the UN creating a super plan to help farmers around the world? This is good news. Anybody interested in good news?  

28 Jan 2008 @ 19:43 by vaxen : Yeah...
and we know exactly what they are doing with their 'stockpiles.' And take a real good look at Bangladeshee farmers and, indeed, the rest of the farmers of the world - benefitting - from these wonderful 'well laid plans of mice and men!' Rather examine what DU is doing to your health. And the infotainment war machine ... "A lot of fun, but mostly gas." - Q

For whom doth that bell toll? For whom does that Sun rise?

"...Oh let me see your beauty when the witnesses are gone
Let me feel you moving like they do in Babylon..." - L.C.  

29 Jan 2008 @ 10:13 by Elle @ : Piles
Perhaps it is like this: "God is it who gives: I am only a distributor."  

31 Jan 2008 @ 21:12 by Quinty @ : And a word from Margery Eagan

Drop dead: When Hill fans attack

By Margery Eagan
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Boston Herald

Apparently I’m guilty of a “psychological gang bang” of Hillary Clinton.

Pardon the language. It’s the term used by the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women. They’ve just done the cause proud by claiming we’re now witnessing a “psychological gang bang” by men and women such as me “who are afraid of a powerful woman” like Hillary. So we’re attacking like schoolyard bullies on a helpless little girl.

“Psychological gang bang” captures the tone as well of voice-mail and e-mail that’s deluged me lately, mostly from women. They say they’ll never read this column or listen to my radio show again because of my constant Hillary bashing.

Well, I’ve bashed lots of people.

Never got reactions like this.

“You are sick and disgusting” about captures the mood.

“You’re dripping with envy” is another theme, though that may be true. I always thought I should be the first woman president.

You wonder why there’s a rush from Democrats to register to vote this election season? We have our answer: a fever pitch pro-Hillary, and a fever pitch against.

On Tuesday, before the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus, state Senate President Terry Murray (our first woman Senate president, by the way) “ripped into” her male Democratic pols for daring to support Barack Obama. She was miffed by Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Congressman Mike Capuano but gave Deval Patrick, Obama’s longtime friend, a pass.

“Are you calling about my shrill words?” Murray deadpanned yesterday when I called. She then confirmed State House News Service quotes that she didn’t want women “pushed aside anymore” after they’ve stuffed all those envelopes and licked all those stamps for all these male pols for all these years. How dare those same pols dump the more qualified Hillary for this young upstart out of nowhere?

So the Senate president goes ballistic. What happens?

“Two dozen yellow roses from somebody I barely know,” Murray says. “You know in the ’20s, women threw yellow roses from the House gallery to get attention from male legislators.” Then there were the calls and notes from other women saying “Bravo” and “Thank you, Terry, for the courage to stand up and say just what we are thinking.”

So - roses and kudos for Murray.

“Drop dead”s for me.

Not every woman who’s left Hillary has been accused of treason.

Prominent businesswoman Pam McDermott, Massachusetts Women for Obama, has felt no backlash. Ditto Thaleia Tsongas Schlesinger, sister of the late senator Paul, who says, “Barack is the future . . . he reminds me so much of John Kennedy.” She has no doubt her late brother would be with Obama, too.

Yet other women tell you, off the record, that they feel pressure from other politically wired women to be with Hillary, who neither forgets, nor forgives.

I guess then in the interests of my career (Could President Hillary get me fired?), I shouldn’t point out why these women don’t like her. (It’s the oh-no-here-we-go-again thing. And the smarmy thing. And the no authenticity and not much integrity thing, as in the qualities that may win John McCain the nomination).

I guess I shouldn’t leave you, either, with a rant from Helen Marie More, 70, of Marlboro, a Republican until “the young man from Illinois” came along, the first Democrat she’s voted for since JFK (oh, the O-bama-lot reference again!) I guess I shouldn’t quote Helen saying Hillary “has no morals, (no) class, substance, conscience . . . just shameless. I don’t believe a word she says. (And) after eight years of them in the White House, they had to go (in) with the fumigator.”

I shouldn’t say any of it, I know. But I just can’t help myself.  

31 Jan 2008 @ 22:47 by Elle @ : Clinton
I think it's too bad Edwards removed himself. Thing is - will people vote for change, just for the sake of change?

Kennedys for Clinton
She stands for Democrats and for the nation, these family members say.
By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kerry Kennedy
January 29, 2008
This is a wonderful year for Democrats. Our party is blessed with the most impressive array of primary candidates in modern history. All would make superb presidents.

By now you may have read or heard that our cousin, Caroline Kennedy, and our uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, have come out in favor of Sen. Barack Obama. We, however, are supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton because we believe that she is the strongest candidate for our party and our country.

While talk of unity and compromise are inspiring to a nation wary of divisiveness, America stands at a historic crossroads where real issues divide our political landscapes. Democrats believe that America should not be torturing people, eavesdropping on our citizens or imprisoning them without habeas corpus or other constitutional rights. We should not be an imperial power. We need healthcare for all and a clean, safe environment.

The loftiest poetry will not solve these issues. We need a president willing to engage in a fistfight to safeguard and restore our national virtues.

We have worked with Hillary Clinton for 15 years (and in Kathleen's case, 25 years) and witnessed the power and depth of her convictions firsthand. We've seen her formidable work ethic, courage in the face of adversity and her dignity and clear head in crisis. We've also seen her two-fisted willingness to enter the brawl when America's principles are challenged. Her measured rhetoric, political savvy and pragmatism shield the heart of our nation's most determined and most democratic warrior.

She has been an uncompromising and loyal ally for each of us in our battles to protect the environment and to promote human rights around the world and juvenile justice in America. Hillary is a problem-solver, listening to people and then achieving solutions by changing attitudes.

Her transformational leadership was on display when she ran for the Senate seat in New York that had been held by our father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. She faced rabid, heavily funded attacks from the far right and the challenge of prevailing in traditionally Republican upstate New York. Traveling with her, we watched admiringly as she persuasively articulated an inspiring and unifying vision rooted in American values and history. Then, through patience, hard work, leadership and political acumen, she transformed many of those rock-solid conservative counties into solid Democratic strongholds.

We look forward to working beside her in the general election as she uses those same talents to change once rigid opinions and political affiliations across the nation.

Like our father, Hillary has devoted her life to embracing and including those on the bottom rung of society's ladder -- giving voice to the alienated and disenfranchised and working to alleviate poverty and injustice, while urging that we cannot advance ourselves as a nation by leaving our poorer brothers and sisters behind.

She's been an equally effective champion for human rights and for women's rights, a worldwide cause that will profit enormously by her elevation to the presidency. She has worked for peace in Northern Ireland and fought to bridge religious, racial and ethnic divides from Bosnia to the Middle East to South Africa. She has shown a rare understanding that American values can only be exported by moral leadership, by a strong home economy and by a detailed understanding of the history and cultural backdrops of the nations we engage.

She understands, as our current administration does not, the uses of power. The world, she says, is hungry for U.S. leadership but will not accept our bullying. She knows the difference and will reestablish America's lost prestige and moral authority.

Hillary Clinton's political career has been centered in comforting the afflicted, afflicting the comfortable and reminding Americans what it means to be American. As a young lawyer, she focused on children's issues and legal aid. As first lady of Arkansas, she brought healthcare to rural areas and helped reform the state's lagging education system.

As first lady, she courageously took on healthcare reform. When a massive propaganda campaign by Big Pharma and the radical right derailed her efforts, she didn't give up. She helped create the nationally acclaimed Children's Health Insurance Program. That kind of persistence in pursuit of our highest ideals is the brand of leadership America now requires. Inspirational leadership comes in many forms.

Seldom has history confronted America with such daunting challenges: a catastrophic foreign policy that has cost us our international leadership and aggravated the threat of terror; a misbegotten war that is squandering precious American lives and treasure; a healthcare system that leaves millions of Americans without coverage; irresponsible corporate power that is corroding our democracy and outsourcing our jobs, aggravating global warming and other environmental crises and reducing our economy to shambles.

We need a leader who is battle-tested, resilient and sure-footed on the shifting landscapes of domestic and foreign policy. Hillary Clinton will move our country forward while promoting its noblest ideals.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental advocate and Kerry Kennedy is a human rights activist.

And a little reality check from Bill (not about Hillary):  

1 Feb 2008 @ 17:16 by Quinty @ : so what
was that supposed to show? That some Kennedy's back Hillary? For all the author offers is some meaningless boilerplate which will offend nobody, only reinforcing the impression that Hillary is a hack, straight out of the Sunday magazine section of your local newspaper, with its celebrity, food, and entertainment news. Pure gruel.

The link to the Bill Clinton ("the best Republican in modern times") video doesn't work.

As "sure-footed" Hillary leads our country forward "on the shifting landscapes" while "promoting its noblest ideals" we should remember many chits are owed the Clintons, who, "battle tested" and "resilient" as they are, have been preparing the landscape a long time. And this may be collection time.  

2 Feb 2008 @ 07:32 by Elle @ : Clinton and Obama
Hillary is better prepared, has substance, explains how she will do what she plans to do, she's strong, confident, and knowledgeable. She showed her quick wit, as well. "It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush," she said. She proved it last night that she is better prepared to be a president than Obama (who could use at least ten more years to learn more and mature).

Did you watch last night? Did you see Obama talk about how he will sit down with Muslim nations, and find out what they don't like and what they want, i.e., terrorist nations, those who would like to kill us and do away with Israel? We know what they like and don't like and what they want. Don't think for one minute that Obama's father being a Muslim will have no role in what he does, nor that it might have been a reason he didn't want to go to war against a Muslim nation. Think about it.

Some people (mostly men) have a hard time seeing any woman as a president, and they'd vote for any man instead, just to have a man. I can't forget that black men had the vote in America before women did. I hope that won't mean we have to have a man again, before another woman. In a way, it does come down to this - but it's only part of the picture.  

3 Feb 2008 @ 00:13 by Quinty @ : I think
that you are revealing more about yourself in your comments than you are about Obama and Hillary Clinton, frankly.

Part of the picture? Apparently a very important part to you. I don't think gender should play a part in this. And it is not Hillary's gender that drives many voters away from the Clintons. It is the Clintons’ cynicism, numerous betrayals of progressive causes (that is, if you are a progressive) and an arrogant sense of entitlement. But who knows, with 300 million plus citizens of the republic not even Saul Steinberg could map everything happening in all their heads.

You may be right, and Obama may need more maturing. But what he offers is not the sort of thing that can be faked. For they are qualities which can't be essentially forged.

We are so accustomed to venal hacks appealing to the basest instincts (McCain is now talking about increasing the Army, Navy, and Marines for the hundred year war with Islamo fascism) that when a candidate comes along and shows some simple intelligence we might be startled. After all, we have had seven years of cynical lies and smiles from our current president, who shamelessly exploited fear and uncertainty to get where he is.

So Obama is a Muslim, a secret jihadist? Oh, please. The one thing the McCains and Huckabees and Romneys have going for them, which they can always exploit, is a weakness of their followers. Whether that be fear or a fanatic prejudice against illegal migrants or Muslims. Fear is large in little lives. And that’s what these hacks, even if they share the same values, exploit. They survive on weakness. And in doing so they bring out the worst in us.

Hillary, who practices politics as usual, recalls all that.

Obama offers an alternative. Yes, Bush (and Bill Clinton) have created some enormous messes which will need competent solutions. Obama has already provided the first step simply by acknowledging them. By challenging the American people and presenting himself as a sane and intelligent leader. Compared to what we have had the past seven years that is an enormous advance. Right or wrong, one of Obama's appeals is dignity, which we have not seen in the White House for a long, long time.

Hillary, by the way, has changed tack slightly. She now says the people have to effect change. A line from Obama. Oh well, it may, and probably will, work for her. She doesn’t care: anything to win.  

3 Feb 2008 @ 00:26 by Quinty @ : Also
there is an implication in what you say that this is a black v. women contest.

I'm hoping these baser sentiments don't emerge. Whoever is chosen by the Democrats, Hillary or Barack, will run against a "conservative" white man. And, this being the United States of America, some ugly attitudes will undoubtedly arise.

This time, though, let's hope not far. It appears we won't know how important race or gender are until the general election.  

3 Feb 2008 @ 22:00 by Elle @ : elections
Obama is now using his race saying that makes him more culturally diversive, therefore a better candidate lol. He's going to use whatever he thinks will get him the ticket. Like Romney now attacking Clinton (and she hasn't yet been chosen as the Dem. nominee), because he's scared of her and would feel he has a better chance to win against Obama.  

3 Feb 2008 @ 23:45 by Quinty @ : Odds
are on Clinton. Though they may be wrong.

Pettiness! We are in a sea of it!  

4 Feb 2008 @ 00:28 by Quinty @ : Toni Morrison
backs Obama.....

{link:|New York Times}

“This is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril...”

There those who mock Barack's “transcendence.” But Morrison, an artist, can relate, which she has in her endorsement. She can see that he sees. For there are many similarities.

It may all sound like mumbo jumbo but if anyone believes in the transcendence of art and philosophy then he or she should pause.

Yes, if Barack is not the real thing we are in for a crash. A spectacular crash, one only the Devil could have organized, grinning.

And, of course, there is the question of experience. But who can be fully experienced and prepared to be the President of the United States? Lincoln, after all, served only one two year term in Congress.  

16 Feb 2008 @ 19:02 by Quinty @ : I think
one of the reasons Obama is so widely admired is because Bush unleashed (over the past seven, soon to be eight years) all that's worst in us, the American people.

Fear, nativism, giddiness, a sense of insecurity: all our worst national aspects have thrived under Bush. Here comes Obama then demonstrating a great deal of dignity and a solid sense of hope, reminding us of our better side as a people. Appearing in his person as if he has the strength of character to take us to a better place.

This is not nothing. This is very important and it is a beginning. The question is, of course, will he be able to deliver?  

16 Feb 2008 @ 19:51 by jerryvest : I agree that Bush has been the worst
ego maniac of our time. It is so refreshing to see the hopeful messages of Obama while all of the others convey more of the same old cronyism. Even if Obama isn't able to deliver the good things he says, it still is better than contributing to more war and destruction of our civilization and our Constitution. There are plenty of skeptics that will always bring a negative message here and there, but we don't need to listen to them. In fact, these characters only add more fuel to the right wing's lies and war mongering. Thanks for contining to support the good things about people and politics. We can have Hope and live our lives the best we can without negativity and pompous behavior.  

16 Feb 2008 @ 21:47 by Quinty @ : Jerry -
I saw a hit piece on CNN news last night comparing Obama to Elvis or a mere rock star. And of course the crowd at his rally cheered wildly demonstrating the mass hysterics. Just like, actually, the way crowds do for McCain or Hillary. But the point was made.

Obama is a phenomenon alright. And if he is a fake he is the first fake to have succeeded by appealing to the better natures of his followers. By presenting a thoughtful and dignified presence. Who has the added touch of oratory, the ability to express himself in a moving and intelligent way.

Bush, in that respect, was the exact opposite. Appealing to popular fear and ignorance. Ignorant, in fact, himself. Believing, if we go way back, the Sunni and the Shia were just buddy buddy. No problem not to worry.

An interesting study in contrasts. Hillary, on the other hand, is very shop worn and soiled and stale. Bill - the master politician - is not helping her. In fact, he appears somewhat scheming and corrupt. If Hillary gets the nod it will be from blind momentum.

I'm for Obama. But part of it is just plain curiosity. Will he be as good as he seems? Or once actually in the White House, truly there, will he bomb? Will it be too much for him?

Critics have been making much of his experience. But can anyone be truly prepared to become the president of the United States? Lincoln had one two year term in the House. Nixon had been vice president for eight years, a US Senator and a member of the house. Look what kind of president he made.  

18 Feb 2008 @ 17:13 by jerryvest : If for no other reason to vote for Obama
it is because he did not support the war. Beyond this is his vision of unifying America and getting us on the right track. I don't think McCain or Hillary will be able to move away from the corporations and be able to unite us. I know it is asking a lot from a new president, but I am inspired like our younger people coming out to vote. We do want a change in direction and focus and I think Obama has the best chance to offer us an opportunity to have a new face and be able to have others throughout the world join us in advancing our best possibilities. Like you, I am also curious and hopeful that change is possible.  

18 Feb 2008 @ 18:16 by Quinty @ : Jazzolog

An interesting discussion on this is taking place over at Jazzolog:  

18 Feb 2008 @ 19:10 by Quinty @ : DLC anyone?
Do you miss those old time "liberal Republicans?" Remember them? Before the far right and Christian right took over the party they sometimes popped up on the national scene.

Well, if you would like to go where the liberal Republicans went you may try searching in the DLC. You know, the "third way?" "Triangulation?" And guess who happens to be a director?  

12 Apr 2008 @ 20:52 by quinty : Guns, God, Obama
"Boost, don’t knock!"


The third rail of American politics is the truth. Year after year we have seen politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, turn and run in panic for having trespassed into that most dangerous and toxic area.

For speaking truth is often seen as unseemly, impolite, a form of bad manners. Or even worse: as unpatriotic, un-American, treasonous.

Barack Obama is not some form of human sledge hammer for the truth. Far from it. He has a supremely keen political sense (which I see as an advantage) and generally knows where he can go. His campaign has been cautious and moderate, right down the center left line.

This week he may have slipped. Comments made in private to a group of supporters in Marin County included this: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them... And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

“And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

It’s unfortunate that Hillary jumped on this as “elitist.” One would expect that of McCain whose base includes the guns, religion, and anti-illegal immigrant crowd. But Hillary has pandered much and often to the right in Pennsylvania. On another occasion when the truth slipped out she badly failed too. This was over the Reverend Wright flap. What emerged here was a vision of race relations in America. The truth. Hillary, wife of the “first black president,” put her political ambitions above this opportunity to begin a relevant - serious and truthful - dialogue on race. She could have allowed McCain to make the claims of reverse racism and America hating rhetoric. It is with the far right that such claims belong. But the Reverend Wright had expressed black America’s sufferings in those much quoted comments. A sympathetic response would have acknowledged all that.

Barrack Obama at least hasn’t turned away from his recent guns, god, and illegal immigrant comments. Rather they offered him an opportunity to reveal his incredible oratorical skills. I was enormously impressed watching him reply to his critics.

Does this mean Obama will speak truth, only truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from now on? Of course not. But truth does seem to come out from time to time in his campaign. And each time it does it is enormously controversial. In fact I too cringe when it happens for - perhaps like another elitist - I wonder how much truth the American people can take? Right wing pundits have already buried Obama for the “astonishing elitism” of his remarks, claiming he can not possibly win the presidential election having said these words. That’s what originally passed through my mind too. But Obama has hit back. And his response was bracing.

Huffington Post had an excellent follow up piece on this flap. It includes both a transcript and a video of Obama’s reply.

Here’s the link to the video of Obama’s reply....  

12 Apr 2008 @ 22:59 by Quinty @ : I see now
that Obama has apologized.

Oh well, the truth is too toxic. It can sink a politician who doesn't come on as Hillary did today in Indiana - on live television - manipulating the dreams and aspirations of her listeners. She surely knows that America offered her all the great opportunities she's enjoyed. She knows we are the shining City on the Hill. None of that negative elitist stuff for her!

And she knows we have a new threat to fear. Here we are, stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, "Islamo fascism" closing in on us, the great vast dark of the Neocon soul encroaching, and what did Hillary say today?

That we have to watch out for China. That China is building up its military and will overtake us. Why hasn't the administration taken into account this vast military threat?

China! The new existential enemy!  

13 Apr 2008 @ 10:17 by jazzolog : Obama vs. The Bush Base
This is going to be very tricky, but Mr. Obama is on to something, as we folks who've lived below the Bible Belt of the Heartland well know. Ms. Clinton is tightening her screws over this, preaching her wondrous love of the Christian tradition and the thrill of the foxhounds after the scent. Ahh, the crisp autumn air---after Sunday church of course. And the rightwing hasn't even gotten started. Unless he pulls off another speech on this, we'll be hearing it until November.

I hope he keeps on it, because what he's going after is the Reagan/Bush base and these people must be confronted sooner or later. These are the blood-and-thunder Pentecostals, their megachurches, their one-issue elections, and their fabulously well-organized voter drives. These are the blue collars who went against union advice and voted for Reagan, whose first action in office was to bust a union strike. They helped kill their unions and then watched the Company move their jobs overseas. And they've voted against their economic interests ever since, following the herd on abortion and war.

It's true, Democrats need to woo and soothe these people back into the ranks...and both senators need to get on it. Clinton's approach feels icky sweet, and I hope Obama spends today getting it together. Here's what the LA Times has on it at this hour~~~


16 Jan 2009 @ 00:36 by Quinty @ : Approaching Inauguration Day

Has an era of competence returned?

Tonight an airline pilot and his crew expertly ditched a plane in the Hudson and saved all
lives. An impressive and admirable performance, something we have not really seen in
many years. Or, at least, are not accustomed to seeing.

Is competence in the air? Obama may fail, and will probably make mistakes, but one of
the most powerful distinguishing characteristics between him and George Bush is that he
appears serious, intelligent, and, yes, competent. Though, like all new presidents, a
trainee for the job. But he has at least returned a high level of dignity to the White House.
And the national "giddies" are hopefully leaving with Bush.

Has this national sea change even affected the way pilots ditch planes into a river? Or is it
only a coincidence? As a columnist recently asked, has "the era of stupid" finally come to
an end?

Palin is still slugging away: but maybe Obama can demonstrate to the American people
how worthless her approach basically is. The "giddies" are finally on the way out!  

29 Jan 2015 @ 06:29 by Tina @ : MsgrZbXkitAOqEYAn
well after hillary found out that the detmcraoic nomination wasn't going to be hand over to her on a platter because barrak obama . it have been win at all cost for her campaign . but it could cost her more than losing the nomination it could cost her political career  

29 Jan 2015 @ 18:16 by Refuse @ : jOvVsRkJDDvUQSwig
Because he said whatever it took to get eetecld. This is just one small example of the real Obama. Everyone who voted for him will begin to see him for the person he really is .sure, it will be slow and steady, little by little, but in time the Obama voters will realize their mistake.  

30 Jan 2015 @ 06:45 by Open @ : gCHAqukATWECqeuLpCQ
So Obama's gonna give her a post too? but seriously Quote:Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle repoendsd to a reporter who asked about the Lewinsky rumors by pretending to receive a cell phone call. When the reporter took the phone from him and closed it while making a we both know what you're doing facial expression,I'm dense and I'm a Libertarian, but when the hell did reporters start taking phones away from US Senators? I'd think if she got any closer than 2 feet, the Senator's security guards (do they get Secret Service protection?) would have had the reporter spread-eagle on the floor with her hands behind her back.Err, ok, poor choice of verbage for a story related to Lewinsky  

29 Apr 2016 @ 06:03 by Bandar Togel @ : brilliant! I would like to share this ar
Togel Online Singapore
Togel Online Hongkong
Bandar Togel Singapore
Bandar Togel
Togel Online Terpercaya
Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya
Togel Online
Agen Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
17 Nov 2008 @ 10:11: My 'story' I just uploaded to
8 Nov 2008 @ 16:06: A Boy Named Sue and the False American Dream
7 Nov 2008 @ 16:01: No He Can't...
6 Nov 2008 @ 09:16: History is NOW
5 Nov 2008 @ 16:58: Obamas World - Africa and the World beyond Poverty !? - but how? - what world?
5 Nov 2008 @ 14:02: Proud to be An American
26 Oct 2008 @ 15:26: Systemic Intelligence: How to teach Systemic Thinking effectively

[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?