We will take the White House, people, if we use ALL of that which we have. We need Hill, Barack, Al, Edwards and all the major Democratic players! Let's combine forces and end America's nightmare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

" But shouldn't we consider the possibility that the race has reached a quasi-equilibrium with Obama in a relatively narrow but decisive lead because both of the candidates are really, really impressive?"

Sure, let's consider that.

Neither candidate has any experience as an administrator of any organization, let alone a large government.

Neither candidate has a plausible strategy, or even commitment, to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq within their would-be term in office.

Both candidates pay lip service to climate destabilization issues and they not only do not have plans for meeting greenhouse reduction guidelines but they undermine moves in that direction by pandering for greater supplies of fossil fuel and lower prices for same, which encourages consumption and pollution.

In fact, neither candidate has a strong environmental record or policy plank at all.

Neither candidate has a plan for universal health care because both are too sold out to actually stand up to the insurance industries instead of mandating that people buy their over priced, under serving "products."

Neither candidate has voted against funding on ongoing, illegal war and occupation.

Neither candidate has urged their colleagues in the House to impeach Bush and Cheney so they can try them for numerous violations of their Constitutional duties and limits of power.

Neither candidate has pledged to undo the gross over reaches of power of the Bush administration.

Neither candidate has shown so much as an understanding of the importance of engaging Hamas, which is the party elected to power by Palestinians, in any plausible plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Both candidates have indicated their intentions to keep growing the overall military/spy budget, which already takes up half of federal spending and is pushing us deeper into debt.

Neither candidate has shown any care or competent leadership for reversing our farm policy which is, together with a biofuels crazed energy policy, pushing the world into the worst food crisis in decades.

And both candidates have indicated they are willing to continue, if not surpass, some of the worst of the militarism pushed by the Bush administration: Hillary by threatening nuclear war with Iran, Barack by declaring his intention to carry out pre-emptive missile strikes and assassinations in foreign countries without supporting U.N. resolutions or the invitation of the foreign countries as required by international law.

Yeah, "really, really impressive"!

Let's consider another possibility. People are desperate and scared by the prospect of another crazy, loose cannon Republican following Bush, so they are doing everything in their power to promote some sort of alternative even if the only likely alternative the corporate-media-two-party power structure presents to them are these two half baked choices to shape our futures. They are simply sizing up what they believe to be the fascist, racist, sexist, religious, corporatist, propagandist land mines buried in the political terrain ahead and trying to pick a non-GOP candidate who is least likely to blow themselves up and, thus, assure us of the worst available choice: John McCain.

The fact is, most of the really, really impressive candidates, like, say, Barbara Lee, get almost no media attention and do not bother to run. The somewhat impressive candidates that do run get ignored or jumped on early by the media and are eliminated. So, knowing only that--and I think most of us do know that--what are the odds that they main dynamic in play, now, is that we have to spectacular Democratic candidates that please and impress people so much they just can't let go of their perfect dream candidate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vote for Obama, but if you vote for Obama and then go back to business as usual nothing will change. Or vote for Hillary, if you want, and the same thing will happen.

Regardless of who gets elected, lobbyists will be trying to limit the public's input and make sure that their legislation gets first place, and that their candidates get the choice regulatory appointments.

Voting for a third political party is just a wasted vote in a Presidential race. It's not the two-party system that's the problem - the problem is all the corporate money in politics. Any third party that was at all successful would also need to seek out the corporate cash to survive, and would need to make friends with lobbyists.

Thinking you can change that system just by voting for one candidate or the other - that's ridiculous. It'll take a lot more public education, legal action, and legislative action to change that dynamic. Of course people should vote - and they should also get all electronic networked voting machines banned - but that's just not enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"But shouldn't we consider the possibility that the race has reached a quasi-equilibrium with Obama in a relatively narrow but decisive lead because both of the candidates are really, really impressive?"

No.

Only one of the candidates is really, really impressive.

The other candidate, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, is an unprincipled, low life, disgusting disgrace and blight upon the Dem Party landscape and as unfit for office as the day they were impeached.

Even the Republican extremists are right some time on some things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Maybe it's just that we have two great candidates."???

That statement is absurd. I wish we had two great candidates! The fact is, the best candidates put forward have been out of the race for a long time. But the very best people to run the country haven't run for president. And who can blame them, with the problems the next president will have on their plate. Whoever wins the White House will have the hardest job ever being the President of the United States, thanks to the past 8 years our current criminal.

I don't have the optimism of foreverhope. I wish I did. I definitely don't want a Hillary Clinton presidency, and I'm certainly not as alarmist about Obama as some here.

But, unfortunately, we do not have two great candidates. That's our biggest problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As Will Rogers used to say, I am not a member of an organized political party; I'm a democrat. The democratic party still has to explain why it chose to destroy Dean's candidacy in 2004. It looks like it will have to explain why it couldn't defeat a sick old man, who is trying to win the Vietnam war, in 2008 when the republican party and its president have virtually destroyed the US. Why is it necessary to challenge bigotry? What was wrong with Edwards or Richardson? It's a democrat type of attack line: form a circle and start shooting. PLEASE! The US cannot survive Bush III.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]