To blame all of Obama's deficiencies on racism is escapist and flat-out WRONG. Clearly you all have set the story line already for November. If Obama wins, it is because he is a transcendent candidate. If he loses, it is because of the evil Hillary and racist Democrats. This is such a BS line that it is pathetic.

Bobby wiretapped Martin Luther King

nobody's perfekt

2008 is a fight for the soul of America

Hillary-war crime enabler, member of the most evil family in the history of the world. She is the signifier party of the people who dragged, chained, and dismembered that black dude in Texas attached to the back of the car.

Obama=Jesus,(the Jewish version of Jesus, remember us Jews do NOT consider Jesus God, only those that wrote a sequel to the book do),
mild, meek, wants peace and love and hope and change

For some reason, people hate LBJ, solely because he signed the voting right and civil right acts.
About the only good thing to happen in America in the last 60 years except for Jimmy Carter

JC
G
O
D

Jimmy Carter
Gore
Obama
Dean


Hillary wants black votes and delegates to only count 3/5 each.
Thats Hillary and William Jefferson Davis Clinton's mindset.

Here is a great video wundermaus found and I know you guys would want to see this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWaL1XnUPN0

May 10, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Seeds of Destruction

By BOB HERBERT

The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully.

Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class. So there was Hillary Clinton cold-bloodedly asserting to USA Today that she was the candidate favored by “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” and that her opponent, Barack Obama, the black candidate, just can’t cut it with that crowd.

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” said Mrs. Clinton.

There is, indeed. There was a name for it when the Republicans were using that kind of lousy rhetoric to good effect: it was called the Southern strategy, although it was hardly limited to the South. Now the Clintons, in their desperation to find some way — any way — back to the White House, have leapt aboard that sorry train.

He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!

The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years.

(Representative Charles Rangel of New York, who is black and has been an absolutely unwavering supporter of Senator Clinton’s White House quest, told The Daily News: “I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.”)

But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now.

I don’t know if Senator Obama can win the White House. No one knows. But to deliberately convey the idea that most white people — or most working-class white people — are unwilling to give an African-American candidate a fair hearing in a presidential election is a slur against whites.

The last time the Clintons had to make a big exit was at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term as president — and they made a complete and utter hash of that historic moment. Having survived the Monica Lewinsky ordeal, you might have thought the Clintons would be on their best behavior.

Instead, a huge scandal erupted when it became known that Mrs. Clinton’s brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, had lobbied the president on behalf of criminals who then received presidential pardons or a sentence commutation from Mr. Clinton.

Tony Rodham helped get a pardon for a Tennessee couple that had hired him as a consultant and paid or loaned him hundreds of thousands of dollars. Over the protests of the Justice Department, President Clinton pardoned the couple, Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, who had been convicted of bank fraud in Alabama.

Hugh Rodham was paid $400,000 to lobby for a pardon of Almon Glenn Braswell, who had been convicted of mail fraud and perjury, and for the release from prison of Carlos Vignali, a drug trafficker who was convicted and imprisoned for conspiring to sell 800 pounds of cocaine. Sure enough, in his last hours in office (when he issued a blizzard of pardons, many of them controversial), President Clinton agreed to the pardon for Braswell and the sentence commutation for Vignali.

Hugh Rodham reportedly returned the money after the scandal became public and was an enormous political liability for the Clintons.

Both Clintons professed to be ignorant of anything improper or untoward regarding the pardons. Once, when asked specifically if she had talked with a deputy White House counsel about pardons, Mrs. Clinton said: “People would hand me envelopes. I would just pass them on. You know, I would not have any reason to look into them.”

It wasn’t just the pardons that sullied the Clintons’ exit from the White House. They took furniture and rugs from the White House collection that had to be returned. And they received $86,000 in gifts during the president’s last year in office, including clothing (a pantsuit, a leather jacket), flatware, carpeting, and so on. In response to the outcry over that, they decided to repay the value of the gifts.

So class is not a Clinton forte.

But it’s one thing to lack class and a sense of grace, quite another to deliberately try and wreck the presidential prospects of your party’s likely nominee — and to do it in a way that has the potential to undermine the substantial racial progress that has been made in this country over many years.

The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/...agewanted=print

Some people, no doubt, hated LBJ for signing the civil rights legislation but for me and a lot of other people, that was about his only redeeming quality.

Yes, the Clinton's have no problem trying to capitalize on existing divisions in this nation if it will help them to win the prize. That's been obvious to some of us for quite a while now. Same old politics, same old garbage, they have brought nothing new or enlightening to this election. What a shame.
This "scorched earth" process disgusts me.

DGG... I didn't say all. But if you cannot see that there is a significant division of the white vote by race then you are in denial. It is evident in the split of white voter support, it is evident in the posts of some Hillary supporters here and elsewhere, and it is evident in the game that is being played ever so coyly by the Clintons.

If you cannot see it you are either blind because of your own lack of objectivity or in denial of it. The media is even speaking of it in hushed phrasing... but it is reality... and not BS as you suggest.

The racisim still present in the Party is what is pathetic. I posted this in this thread to avoid conflict with Hillary supporters... as it clearly does not apply to all of her supporters, but it clearly is an ugly element within this campaign and exploiting it as a campaign wedge is despicable.

Thank you for you opinion. I'll keep mine thank you.


Edit to add:

Yes some people have non-racially based reasons for supporting one candidate over the other. Most I would say... but there is still a significant portion for which it is their main issue.

Definitely.

You read minds now too Dgg ?

Facts are indisputable. You may not be willing to admit it, even to yourself, but they exist. And so does far too much racism in the US even today. And it has been encouraged and enabled by those who should damn well know better.

Skin colour is no criteria upon which to judge a human being. But your self righteous, christian nation still is crippled by that mindset. Perhaps one day when we are all gone, that ridiculous notion, along with others every bit as repugnant, will also disappear. How else do you explain the venom expressed even here at the prospect of such an event as a black man becoming the leader of a nation taking place which enslaved those of his racial origin? And he isn't even all black ! He had a white mother. Not a lot different from all those in the US who trace their ancestry back to their white slave masters except her choice to marry a black was free will. The blacks cannot claim the same privilege for their forebears.

Society better wake up to the realization that the Caucasian race is in decline. We are outnumbered on this planet and before too many more generations will be a part of history. Adapt and assimilate or life as we have known it will not exist for our grandchildren.

Race is irrelevant in today's world. As it should be. We of the Christian faith worship the One we call the Son of God. Do you think it is just a fluke that His Son was not caucasian ?

Obama will win or lose based on his ability to communicate his message to the people. Not because of his skin colour, or even his political affiliation , he will win if he wins the trust of a nation desperately in need of new hope and a desire to come together as one nation.

Racism is an element. What some don't "get" is that I'm not saying that everyone is racist... that all Dems are racist. It doesn't take "all"... but it is a small but significant percentage. 10%, 20% or some other figure... who knows. There is no way to measure the extent of it but it clearly an element of this campaign. Some cannot see, or won't admit that a racial divide exists among white Americans.... where some are willing to vote across racial lines while others are clearly not. It is indisputable and is even, more or less, bragged about by some posters.

It is an element that had benefited Hillary in the primary and is being coyly played for advantage and as part of her argument of big blue "read white" states. In a race that is so closely divided it has been an issue... and likely the only reason for those 8 and 9 point wins in some of those older white states. That advantage disappears in the "newer" white states where the white vote split is more even.... and is evidenced in many of the white states that Obama carried.

It is disgusting to see it come into play at all these days.... but it has. It is more troubling to see candidates try to play it.

The Democratic Party is likely to be divided by this issue if this line of campaigning continues.

What is amazing to me is that there are some who would put McCain in the White House and continue the destruction of America rather than vote for a "black" man. To those, I guess race supercedes country.

Identity politics is alive and well... and the GOP will play it to a tune. Divide and conquer.

(AGAIN.... to be clear, I'm saying SOME... NOT ALL)

It only takes SOME such racially exclusive people to lose elections... and it looks like there could well be enough.

Anyone know of any REAL progressive to moderate forums ?

It's clear that there are very few progressives here and there are actually a few that seem like they came in on a freeper boat.

Personally, I don't cleanly fit any prescribed mold and am moderate on most issues, but I am more liberal on social issues but I see far too much wrong with our country today... far too much wrong with the system... to believe that so very many are not only content with the status quo but actually actively support it.

IMHO, too many are simply tangled up in the superficial stuff... healthcare plans and the cost of gas etc., to see the deep, fundamental problems underlying the whole system and are basing decisions on such meaningless drivel... while overlooking fundamental philosophy and need for serious change in the system. The system is corrupt and everyone is so invested in this football game type politics that they cannot see that they are being played like a fiddle. The PTB don't care whether a Dem wins or a Republican wins.... they win no matter which Party wins... they own them both. So while democracy and freedom are going to hell in a handbasket, everyone is busy arguing over relatively unimportant matters and missing the big picture.

Watching what is going on in this country is like being awake and anesthetized at the same time... you can see the surgeon cutting you open, feel the pain, and can't say a word or do a thing about it.

People... wake up. (not those of you here who understand.... but Americans everywhere who go through their comfortably numb days totally oblivious to the reality that exists outside their own little world).

And the narcotic of choice is consumerism.

If I find a good progressive forum I will share the info.


lenal

And voters will continue to focus on the issues that affect their lives when they're hurting financially or in some way feel their basic needs are not being met. Basic needs must be met first (as one defines basic needs) before people can move on to the "higher order" issues. But I share your frustration.

You're right in that respect. Most people are so low on Maslow's heirarchy of needs in our society today... that they are concerned about just making it from day to day.

The problem is that all the issue du jour is just noise that keeps people focused on keeping gas in their tank while the oil companies buy the polticians they need to keep robbing the bank. If we could change the system... most, if not all, of the problems would be taken care of.

The oil issue is a good example. We're sitting on reserves that could furnish all of our needs, and provide petroleum at a reasonable cost, for hundreds of years. Yet we are sitting idly by an allowing oil companies to play an artificial scarcity game which creates high prices (and huge profits) while the public is being bamboozled and politicians sit with their heads turned the other way while oil companies put money in their pockets.

And... this is just one example.

Oh well.... wonder if gas went up or down by ten cents today. Doo De Doo De Doo....

One could only hope that the narcotic wears off... when the credit cards are maxed, the mortgage payment is late, the gastank is empty and their job has been outsourced.

I believe things are going to get much worse before (and if) they get better. There is no way that the Fed can infuse any more money into the economy as they're already bailing out banks (secretly) left and right, banks have nobody left to loan money to since everyone is a bad credit risk, The government is tapped out to the tune of $ 9,000,000,000,000.00 and is bleeding money and running out of sources to borrow from in the face of a devalued dollar.

The only thing left they can say is that the weak dollar will help exports. Yeah... wonderful... we can sell more overseas... but unfortunately our buying power is about half what it used to be. You can have more money... but you'll need twice as much to be where you were to start with.

Yep... things are going great.


BTW - thanks for keeping an eye open. I'm getting to the point that I'm tired of the mindset of many here. Not the Hillary v Obama thing... but the general mindset that some have expressed. Progressive.... not even close... half of them would have to take a big step to be called moderate.

People say they want change... but they keep wanting to support the same old thing and then expect a different result.

What was that saying.... about doing the same thing and expecting a different result ?

Bill Clinton's Message to Rural America
May 10, 2008 2:43 PM

As Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., avoids any real campaigning in West Virginia, the former president of the United States is out there ginning up resentments.

Bill Clinton has the right to say whatever he wants, of course. But he's a smart man. Brilliant, even.

He can do the math. He must know that it's quite improbable that his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will be the Democratic presidential nominee.

So what purpose does it serve for him to barnstorm a state like West Virginia and tell rural voters that Obama and his elitist political/media cabal allies are mocking Appalachia?

He's using the kind of language Democrats typically use against Republicans -- as in, stuff you say when you don't want voters to vote for the other guy under any circumstance.

This is tough stuff to walk back from.

Per ABC News' Sarah Amos, this is what the 42nd president of the United States said Friday in Ripley, W.Va.:

"Hillary is in this race because of people like you and places like this and no matter what they say," Clinton said. "And no matter how much fun they make of your support of her and the fact that working people all over America have stuck with her, she thinks you're as smart as they are. She thinks you've got as much right to have your say as anybody else. And, you know, they make a lot of fun of me because I like to campaign in places like this, they say I have been exiled to rural America, as if that was a problem. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be here than listening to that stuff I have to hear on television, I'd rather be with you. There is a simple reason: You need a president a lot more than those people telling you not to vote for her."

In Madison, W.Va.:

"It is very interesting, from the very beginning of this race there has been a sharp divide in the vote -- the people who need a president, who need to turn the economy around, who need to restore the middle class, who need to give poor people a chance to work their way into the middle class, who need to give our children a better future, who need to restore our standing in the world and the war in Iraq, but do it in a way that rebuilds our military and stands up for America's security and standing around the world -- they have been for her from the get-go."

And on and on... Ginning up the resentments and the class divide (and maybe other divisions). ... Obama and the media are laughing at you and think you're stupid!!!

Obama has a clear problem with white working class voters. This kind of rhetoric exacerbates it. Clinton knows that -- he's trying to drive up turnout to maximize his wife's popular vote argument to superdelegates. He has every right to do so -- the race is not over, no nominee exists yet.

But this is what keeps Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi up at night.

- jpt

It's the victory lap of a dying generation
Sort of like Kerry let Edwards do NC in 2004

one more ride on the merry-go-round

then the old man will go off into whatever hole he crawled out of in the first place
may he never show his bulbous nose again

let the old guy have this one
then push him out of the plane with no parachute

Yes it would be refreshing to see the Democratic Party focus more on workers' rights and social justice. It may be that the only solution is revolution but I hope not.

Oh no CO...

The Clintons wouldn't do such a thing. After all... aren't we all Democrats, black and white, rich and poor, hard-working and lazy, smart and stupid. Divide and conquer. They wouldn't do such a thing.

Somebody must think we're all in that "stupid" segment.

I fear it is too late. The wheels are already in motion and democracy and freedom are already on the ropes... all the while people are wrapped up in the few trees they see to see the forest. The small picture is ugly... but few even comprehend the big picture. Ahhh... but that is the intent isn't it. Keep 'em distracted while we dismantle the rest of the Constitution and we sell out the rest of their interest to multinational corporations. By the time they awaken the game will be over. The gig is up.

Yes it is sickening. However I don't see H. D. & N. P. any less a part of the problem than Bill C.

In the big picture you are right. In the microcosm of this election there is a difference. It seems we'll never address the big picture. Right now I'd settle for a micro solution / baby step in the right direction.

Agreed.

Good cop, bad cop time. He's mostly under the radar so he can do the dirty deed and try and make Obama unelectable.
And there will be Hillary .. ready to come to the rescue , if not in 08 .. get ready for 2012

If the Dems don't kick their asses out now , its over. The party is finished.

You would not believe how saintly she is sounding today. They're covering her on CNN right now. Strange thing .. the good old boy Rocky is missing. Sweet, gentle Hillary is back . For now. And I was feeling sorry for her ! My god, I'm stupid.

Obama Campaign Launches "Vote For Change" Voter Registration Drive
| May 10, 2008 10:06 AM


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/10/o...n_n_101108.html

Nite Owl -- for inspiration watch the Pangea Day online.....I have a post on here today with the link. It is very moving ....and such a welcome change from the propaganda that passes for news all over the globe.


lenal

Update:

http://www.pangeaday.org/

the previous link worked during the live presentationsl Now you can select taped video segments at the regular website:

http://www.pangeaday.org/


lenal

Thank you so much nite owl. That was very nice of you. In actuality I'm not thick skinned. I love a debate. But what I meant is it seems people are much more bright and knowledgeable about politics than I could ever be. I'm not scared off. I'm probably boring. I'm not looking for a compliment. Truth. But I sure enjoy & learn from everyone else's. I'm curious about everyone's background. Some of you are definitey in the political field.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1176

Five Stages of Grief for the Winning Side, Too
1. Denial: “But Senator Clinton hasn’t conceded yet! She doesn’t admit that she’s lost! She keeps moving the goal posts, continues playing the race card, it therefore must not really be over for her. We need her permission to move on!“

2. Anger: “If the rest of you don’t lash out at what’s upsetting me in exactly the way I am, you’re as bad as she is!”

3. Bargaining: “This means that Obama has to put Clinton on the ticket (like Andrew Sullivan says, ‘hello again to all that!’). Oh, wait, scratch that: he has to put a Clinton supporter on the ticket. Or maybe he has to put a different woman on the ticket… or how about…”

4. Depression: “Where’d everybody go? God, I miss the adrenaline of when this was a real contest!”

5. Acceptance: “Oh, goodie: More adrenaline to come! A general election campaign! Of course Obama will choose his running mate according to his standards. I bet it’ll be as smart a move as those that got him here!”


one comment-
evie, on May 9th, 2008 at 10:29 am Said:
“We need her permission to move on.”

Great point. I found myself at a loss on Wed when the media was declaring Obama the winner. I couldn’t believe it because, well, Clinton didn’t give me permission. Yes, she’s gotten in my head and it’s got to stop.

The first official chart showing Obama leading super delegates
Also the largest lead ever


Delegates: Pledged Super Total Needed
Obama 1,590.5 274 1,865.5 160

Clinton 1,426.5 270.5 1,696 327.5

Remaining 217 250.5 467.5

Thanks lenal. I'll be sure to check it out. A little inspiration may help with the sense of frustration and hopelessness that I'm having right now with our race.... the human race.

I'm beginning to get the picture.... it is so evident in the threads of posters that it is hard to miss.

There are two Democratic Parties.... they've just been shacked up and it looks like the shack up is about to get to that point in a relationship where there the decision has to be made. We're either gonna hook up and become a real couple... love and togetherness and all that, or we're gonna split up.

The battle lines are being drawn... the older, more conservative Dems (Blue Dogs if you will) vs the more moderate to progressive leaning younger Dems.

The older Dems are feeling like, by God, this is our time. We've been through years of waiting for our day and we have our candidate and we are not going to be denied. Our candidate, flawed may she be, is one of us. She represents the continuation of the only Demooratic Presidency in the last quarter century. Times weren't bad and we'd like to go back. Who does this young upstart think he is challenging our rightfully supported candidate. She's been a great warrior for us over the years... and we're not going to desert her now. That young guy hasn't paid his dues. He hasn't opened enough doors or kissed enough butts yet. He's gotta earn it before he can carry our torch.

The younger Dems are coming from an entirely different place. Been there done that. We survived the Clinton years while we saw gridlock stop any progress. We saw NAFTA born, fathered by the Clintons and we saw jobs move overseas. We've seen Washington sold out to corporate interests. We've seen the current Democratic contingency sit by and not have enough backbone to stand up for us. We've seen Democrats hand over control to Bush and his minions. We've seen that Democrats and Republicans have become so alike and so invested in the system that they've forgotten about us... the people. We've been abandoned. We've seen the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We've seen Democrats and Republicans become so alike that it's hard to tell the difference.

We've seen old politics and old politicians look out for each other and care less about us. We've seen the direction we're going... and we're not about to go over the falls in a barrel without a fight. We don't want more of the same. We don't want the old politics that have created this mess we now have. We want hope and something to believe in. And no.. we don't believe that they are hollow words because they are the basic tenets of being an American. We dare to hope and we dare to believe because we know we can do better. We trust ourselves more than we trust those professional life-long beltway insiders. We know their kind and we reject them. We know that only someone not of the establishment can possibly fix some of the things which are wrong with the establishment. We believe in ourselves. In We we trust. In them we don't.

We want better... and after having given them decades to make things better... they have gotten worse than ever. Why should we give them another shot ? They've already proven their allegiance to corporate American and each other. We believe that we can have a better America... if we can only break the chains that tie us to the old politics.

We don't buy into entitlement. We respect those who've gone before... but this is our time as much as it is theirs. Nobody is guaranteed tomorrow... and nobody has a monopoly on today. We can't wait four, eight, or sixteen years for what some believe to be "our turn". We don't have that long to stop this trainwreck. We don't need to. We need someone now... with new ideas and a new direction. We need to fix America now... for a better tomorrow. Why should we stay on the path we're on. Haven't they been driving the bus for years now. Time for a new conductor.

At this point it looks like the best that many can do is to agree to disagree. Do we share a common allegiance to the Party that is stronger than our own individual interests. Do we put the relationship first... or ourselves first. Are we going to commit to a relationship that may be a little rocky... or are we going to be so strongly passionate (or stubborn) that we just can't get along and have to break up ?

I don't know. Breaking up is hard to do.... but sometimes it is the only choice. That seems to be what I'm hearing a lot in these threads... an awful lot of reluctance on the part of the "old" to accept any part of the "new" and vice versa.



Lo que será

Larry Diamond

The Fierce Urgency of Now

May 10, 2008 | 01:23 AM (EST)


During the 2004 general election campaign, former Secretary of Defense William Perry--one of the great public servants in the post-World War II history of the United States--actively campaigned for a presidential candidate for the first time. Speaking repeatedly and passionately on behalf of John Kerry, the normally understated Perry described the 2004 election as "the most important in my lifetime." For a man who had grown up during the Great Depression and World War II, who had reached professional maturity and brilliant engineering and business success during the Cold War, and then had served as undersecretary of defense in the Carter Administration, it was a powerful statement--and a completely honest one.

The Iraq war had been a disastrous mistake and we had to find a way out. Our moral authority and military strength in the world were being squandered. Our domestic problems were piling up and we needed a new sense of purpose, clarity, and resolve to address them. The president that was seeking reelection showed no sign of understanding the nature of its resilience and its capacity for eventual self-correction. That may remain true, but "eventual"--the ability to look to some time in the future--is what we no longer have. The defining character of the 2008 election is what Barack Obama has called "the fierce urgency of now." We simply cannot drift through another four years of aimless "staying the course" in Iraq while the principal Iraqi parties dig in their heels on the big constitutional questions which cry out for compromise. Already, the indicators of our military strength--in terms of military recruitment quality, officer retention, and readiness for other military engagements--are in worrisome decline.

On issue after issue, from the home mortgage crisis to the ballooning budget deficit to the crisis of exploding health care costs and imploding insurance coverage, it is increasingly apparent that America's future as a great and successful nation is going to be at stake in the coming years, defined by whether we can find effective answers to these challenges--and pretty soon. How long can we go on being, as Thomas Friedman recently put it in his New York Times column, "Dumb as We Wanna Be," (and I would add, lazy and irresponsible as well)--"borrow[ing] money from China and ship[ing] it to Saudia Arabia"--before our profligacy catches up with us and defeats us? How long can we keep falling further and further not just our European peers, but countries like Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, China, and India in the quality of math and science training, before we lose the core foundation of our superpower status, our technological edge? This long national fling of careless self-indulgence cannot go on forever. Eventually, every bill comes due.

There is no problem that existentially challenges the United States--and every other country in the world--more than energy and climate change. As Friedman has repeatedly demonstrated in his columns, we are burying our heads in the sand and kicking the problem down the road. Now--when the need to incentivize the switch to wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy is more palpable and urgent than ever-- the renewal of tax credits for these alternative sources of energy is stuck in the Congress, as Bush and the Democrats lock horns again. Years after it became apparent that we had to break our addiction to carbon-based fuels and especially to imported oil, we face the worst crisis ever in global oil prices and supplies, and with barely improved efficiency in America's long love affair with the car. And now, as Friedman stresses, in the peak of the crisis, the answer of John McCain, and (very sadly) Hillary Clinton following him, is to suspend the one mild (and pathetically inadequate) incentive to improve fuel economy--the federal gasoline tax.

Anyone who thinks the problem can wait for another few years, or the next American administration after this one, should take a hard look at the gathering global food crisis. As more and more corn and other food crops are sucked up into the production of biofuels, and as climate change already begins to affect production of food crops in a number of countries, while population growth surges forward in most of the world's poorest countries, a global crisis is gathering. Already governments from Asia to Africa to the Middle East have been rocked. Food riots cost the prime minister of Haiti his job and are accelerating the danger of a sudden political convulsion in Egypt.

As numerous experts, like the head of the UN World Food Program, Josette Sheeran, are warning, the crisis not only threatens the ability of tens of millions of poor people to get enough food to survive (with declining quality of food intake already risking permanent impairment of young children in particular), but it also threatens global peace and stability. Where is the place of this issue in the presidential campaign? It's easy to celebrate the virtues of ethanol in a primary election in Iowa. But what are the candidates going to do as president to confront the hard trade-offs between food and fuel and to get serious--as if it were the dawn of the Great Depression or World War II--about the existential threat that dependence on oil and gas poses to our security and well-being, nationally and globally?

In the face of these obvious and deeply sobering challenges, of the greatest accumulation of crises facing the United States since World War II, what we have had from our media is a frenzy of obsession with personalities and the hunt for scandal worthy only of the tabloids, or entertainment TV. Within a spell-binding 24 hour period not long ago, CNN devoted more time to live, full coverage of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's two speeches about his theories of race in America than it has given (insofar as I can tell) to the speeches of any presidential candidate in any 24-hour period in this entire presidential election campaign. Normally, once the candidates start getting into the really serious talk about the issues, CNN cuts away to go to the latest scandal of some depraved lunatic holding a sex slave in his basement. There was also the sad spectacle of one of the best television news organizations--ABC--spending the first half of the last presidential debate grilling the candidates on nothing but personal charges and questions of character.

How about a debate where the candidates talk about nothing but energy and climate change? It is increasingly apparent that this is the most serious challenge human civilization globally has ever faced. The Bush Administration has utterly failed in its moral and historical responsibility to act. How will the next president lead and cooperate internationally to achieve steep reductions in carbon emissions before it is really too late? What sacrifices are they going to ask of the American people? Or are they going to give us the same shameless froth that we have had for the last seven years of this presidency--that we can have it all, our war, our big homes and cars, our high-debt, high-consumption lifestyles, and not pay any price at all?

We need answers to these questions now, during this campaign. Because, if the presidential candidates do not speak some hard and difficult truths now to the American people, none of them will be able as president to mobilize the policy innovations and intensive investments that must come, with the speed that must come.

This is not a challenge for some time out there in the future when, if it doesn't work out the way we want this time, we can get a president who gets it. We have run out of time. We have reached that fierce and painful moment where we must change and act, urgently, now.

Amen

Great post! Can you believe that there are folks out there touting a third party, Hillary candidacy?

Go for it

I for one want Obama to win without one Hillary voter at all

Who needs it?

Hillary never was a Democrat

She is a war criminal and she and Lieberman can all go to hell, where they will end up years from now anyhow
(Though Jews don't believe in heaven and hell, that is a Christian thing not a Jewish thing(at least some Jewish sects).

Pretty unbelievable. How in the world do they believe that she could win as a third party candidate... if she can't win from within the Party ?

Must be in an alternate universe...

They don't. But it stops Obama .. they think. Split the vote and McCain sails to victory. Hallelujah ! Bush has a third term !

Anything to not allow the man who deserves it to inhabit the 'White' House.

Well if that's what they want... let them eat cake.

From the comments I read here the Democratic Party is about 50% hypocritical bigots... and the other half don't even know what a Democrat is suppposed to be.

No wonder the Party is having an identity crisis... and why they haven't accomplished anything in the past quarter century.

They managed to elect one President... and had to shift way to the right to do it. Apparently many are Republicans who call themselves Democrats. Far too many Blue Dogs.

But little of that matters... that's all irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. Both parties have sold their souls to the Neo-cons, the military industrial complex, the multinational corporations and the rich. Neither party represents the people any longer, and if it takes the total destruction of either or both parties to change the system... Let's go.

Bill and Hillary are as deep into the establishment machinery as you can get... not only on the national level... but the global level as well. They believe that giving everyone a few peanuts like a healthcare plan or some other such social programs will appease people. Well it will appease some... those who believe that such distractions are the biggest problems we face. All the while the sellout of America will continue... while people are deadlocked with a football game mentality. Distract and redirect... that is the name of the game. All the while the MSM keeps people hyped about the election and the status quo runs interference to make sure the game never gets changed.

So... if they want to destroy the party... well, let's go, the sooner the better.

And these people wonder what is wrong with the Democratic Party.

They need to look in the mirror.

They don't get it... and never will.

I was born in June, 1935 and was early to become politically aware. There are more ways that things are the same now as they were then than ways things are different. Within the Life Span of individual persons, one can only change the way one perceives, conceives, feels, intends and acts
upon the Universe, not change the Universe. In the aggregate, over long periods of Time, we may improve the emergent evolution of Human Culture and of the Universe or we may blow the fu*c*er
up...

Right now... I'm beginning to think the latter is more probable. Dems cannot even agree with Dems about what they are all about in any meaningful way. We don't even have to look across the wider spectrum.

Tom Allen endorses Barack Obama


By Portland Press Herald Staff Report
May 12, 2008 10:30 AM

Democratic Rep. Tom Allen announced this morning that he is supporting Barack Obama for president.

"I have been friends for a very long time with former President Clinton and Sen. Clinton. I respect their service to our nation," Allen said in a written statement. He added that "most of the primary voters across the nation have now spoken. It is time to bring a graceful end to the primary campaign. We now need to unify the Democratic party and focus on electing Sen. Obama and a working majority in the United States Senate."

Allen is challenging Sen. Susan Collins in a hotly contested Senate race.

Let's win this senate seat for Tom.

Do not lose heart NO -- this is a progressive forum.

Unfortunately, the campaign rhetoric and similarity in positions (progressive though they are) have led people to express animosity toward each other...

We shall overcome...

No...there is one Democratic party.

The problem is that it has been engaged in a sorry battle which has divided it...but the strength of the Democratic party has always been its diversity...

In past elections there have been swings between the progressive, conservatives, and liberal wings of the party...

This is another of those...

And despite the fracturing of the party --- it will heal --- or it will destroy itself...

I am confident it will heal.

Our party is growing.

We have welcomed into into it anti-aboriton candidates -- very conservative democratic Senators like JIm Webb and Sen. Casey -- we have Bill and Ben Nelson...we have Sheldon Whitehouse --- and Ken Salazar and Sherrod Brown and JOn Tester....

IN taking on a more conservative bent --- there are going to be growing pains...

BUt these senators for the most part are supporting Obama...

Obama is not what many of you may think he is --- I have said this before to you...

Just like I did with Howard Dean...

Howard Dean has taken the party to the middle - he is a centrist -- on guns and Christian values --- he has moderated the party's liberal points of view...and pushed it toward a more libertarian bent...

This is good and healthy in my opinion...

BUt dgg suggests that he will no longer support the liberal wing of the party...

What he fails to realize is that that is where Hillary Clinton's base of support is --- the progressive and conservative wings of the party support Obama...primarily...

Obama is not a liberal -- and he will not govern like a liberal...

If you have read anything about Obama --- he is a moderate ---- he will govern by consensus --- he is not a liberal Democrat...

Republicans will try and paint him that way as they tried to paint Bill Clinton that way and would paint Hillary that way --- but Obama is closer to the DLC ways on thinking than to the left wing of the party...

Here's Hillary:

y!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

When I think of the Clintons and Kubrick together... another movie comes to my mind.

Last evening on C-Span Road to the White House there was a broadcast of an appearance by Obama on his Oregon tour at Bend in central part of the state. It was a stump speech variation plus town hall features taking questions from the audience. His answers were remarkably detailed. If you would like to view it, go to C-Span's recent programs video list and I am sure you can find it.For those wanting to see the beef, there is a big serving there.


And I will see the glass half full. The promotional myth of labeling Democrats "liberal" has about run its course within the party and will soon meet the same fate in the general election. The demonization of the label is just another extreme of the opposition. They really have no way to describe the diversity of the party. For a graphic look at the difference in party content just go to the official Congress site and look for the list of ethnic/racial membership. The democrats have the most of all the different elements - gender, religion and Asian, Latino, African American etc. and since our nation is becoming an even larger melting pot only that inclusiveness will appeal to what is becoming the majority. Meaning old boy white caucasians are in jeopard politically, they know this and feel the gradual erosion of their power, thus the reactive behaviors.

Trying to label the dynamics only on an age basis doesn't apply, just another false generalization. Everyone in our community Democratic Club are well over sixty five. There is one Clinton supporter.


lenal

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...0,2483504.story

From the Los Angeles Times
A quick Clinton exit wouldn't help Obama
She'd still be on the ballot in several states and Puerto Rico. How would it look for him if she won some of them?
By DON FREDERICK AND ANDREW MALCOLM
TOP OF THE TICKET

May 11, 2008

"The Democratic race now moves to West Virginia," Jay Leno noted the other night. "Today, Hillary Clinton claimed she always wanted to be a coal miner. But those dreams were dashed when she was forced to attend Wellesley and Yale."

The political focus now does, indeed, shift to the Mountain State for its primary on Tuesday. And then Kentucky and Oregon and Puerto Rico, down to the very end in Montana and South Dakota on June 3.

Times political writer Mark Z. Barabak had an interesting conversation with Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist not involved with a candidate this time. Counterintuitively, the way he sees the inevitable delegate math in favor of Barack Obama, the worst thing that could happen to the Illinois senator now is what so many party members are clamoring for: Hillary Rodham Clinton to drop out.

Why?

Because with her name still on the ballots, she'd be very likely to win in West Virginia anyway. And maybe Kentucky too, given the demographics in both places. And possibly Puerto Rico as well.

How would that look if at the end of the Democratic race the winning candidate with clearly the most delegates and popular votes went down to defeat against a candidate who isn't in the contest anymore? Ouch! That would tend to overshadow his expected wins in Oregon and Montana.

In fact, although little noticed because the Republican race had long been over, Sen. John McCain won his Pennsylvania primary with 73% of the vote. Put another way, the surefire Republican nominee lost about 27% of his party's vote to a candidate who had long since dropped out (former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee) and a Republican rebel who never really had any chance of winning (Texas Rep. Ron Paul).

"If [Obama] lost to a candidate who's withdrawn, that would hurt him a lot," says Devine. "And there's a good chance that could happen."

Better for Obama, he figures, for the former first lady to remain in the race a few more weeks, as long as she recalibrates her rhetorical cannons at McCain and President Bush.



Sign them up, they said

Ever since he claimed his big North Carolina win, Obama has clearly signaled that he's moving on with a general election campaign.

So his campaign announced 14 co-chairs of a nationwide voter registration drive. All pretty predictable and routine . . . until the list is perused.

Who knew, for instance, that Usher -- the R&B singer, identified in the Obama release by his full name, Usher Raymond IV -- had an interest in nitty-gritty political organizing?

Same with band leader Dave Matthews and knockout actress Kerry Washington?

All three will be, according to the campaign, among those who "will oversee the program's efforts and act as surrogates to boost participation across the country."

The first quote about the effort, in fact, comes from singer Melissa Etheridge, who says, "Barack Obama started his career as a community organizer in Chicago, working with communities devastated by plant closings, and after law school he returned to those neighborhoods to register new voters. From the beginning of his career, he's made change happen by enfranchising people at the grass roots, and that's what Vote for Change is all about."

That may well be, but we can't wait to see her, Usher, Matthews and Washington toting registration sign-up sheets at shopping centers.



Honoring the 57 states

Obama, speaking at the start of a two-day swoop through Oregon, let it slip that during this marathon 16-month Democratic presidential nomination struggle, he had already visited 57 states with one more to go.

That's not counting Alaska and Hawaii, he said, which his staff decided aren't important enough to visit yet.

Has this aging freshman senator -- he'll be almost 60 in 13 years -- lost his bearings? Obama's gaffe caused a noticeable stir online during the day, and even the respected Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic anticipated that the political media would kindly write off the Democrat's misstatement to fatigue. But he wrote that if, say, the Republican nominee-to-be had uttered the same silly flub, it would surely be added to eager suspicions of senility.

Besides trying to noodle out what the new states are, some clever campaign folks over at the Suitably Flip blog got to thinking right away.

And they've now unveiled a new patriotic lapel pin that anyone can wear with pride -- even, say, a Harvard-educated senator from Illinois who's been trying to make a point about opposing a war before it even started.



Yes, it's all one sentence

Columnist George Will channeled his inner William Faulkner in reflecting on the straits Clinton faces in her pursuit of the Democratic nomination.

Pundits galore wrote words aplenty on the same topic, but no others did so in a sentence (yes, a la Faulkner, a single twisting sentence) as audacious as the one produced by the erudite Will. We commend it to your attention:

"After Tuesday's split decisions in Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton, the Yankee Clipperette, can, and hence eventually will, creatively argue that she is really ahead of Barack Obama, or at any rate she is sort of tied, mathematically or morally or something, in popular votes, or delegates, or some combination of the two, as determined by Fermat's Last Theorem, or something, in states whose names begin with vowels, or maybe consonants, or perhaps some mixture of the two as determined by listening to a recording of the Beach Boys' 'Help Me, Rhonda' played backward, or whatever other formula is most helpful to her, and counting the votes she received in Michigan, where hers was the only contending name on the ballot (her chief rivals, quaintly obeying their party's rules, boycotted the state, which had violated the party's rules for scheduling primaries), and counting the votes she received in Florida, which, like Michigan, was a scofflaw and where no one campaigned, and dividing Obama's delegate advantage in caucus states by pi multiplied by the square root of Yankee Stadium's ZIP Code."

Excerpted from The Times' political blog, Top of the Ticket, at www.latimes.com/

topoftheticket.