http://hillaryvotersformccain.com

http://hillaryvotersformccain.com/forum

http://hillaryclintonforum.net

http://hillbuzz.blogspot.com/

Just four out of the HUNDREDS of anti-Obama websites on the net, 97% of them from card-carrying disenfranchised DEMOCRATS.

Soon to be EX-DEMOCRATS.

You you can't, you never could, you won't ever, and you never will.

Next time try a black American like Jesse Jackson Jr.

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

As a working class white woman who raised two children by myself, all I needed to be solidly in Barack's camp was to read "The Audacity of Hope." His profound respect for his mother beamed out of every page and I found myself wishing I could have gotten to know her. I identified thoroughly with her, trying to raise a good, solid son in a culture that offers so many obstacles to that goal, struggling financially, trying to make choices that nourished me without endangering my kids. And the image of her getting him up in the pre-dawn hours to study, insisting that "this is no picnic for me either, buddy," completely endeared that mother/son duo to me.
I want Barack to win, in part, because I want his mother to win and be vindicated for her choices and her enormous spirit and drive. Her story, brought to fruition through him, should inspire women everywhere.

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

I am a lifelong democrat & an Obama supporter from before the Iowa caucus. In recent days, both my mother and my mother-in-law have expressed their inclination to vote for Obama in Nov. Both of these women are in their 80's and lifelong Republicans. I know for a fact that neither of them has ever considered voting outside their party in their 60+ years of voting. Something's happening here.

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

Go ahead, ladies. Self destruct. Vote for that poor tired sick (PTSD) sad and befuddled Korean P.O.W.
war hero, always forgetting that being a prisoner of war and torture victim, however deserving of our sympathy ( unlike the people we torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo) is NOT a qualification for President. Wake up and smell the latent racism that causes you to do so. I love the comment about a "real" Black man like Jesse Jackson. I was a Jackson poll watcher in the Presidential Primary and remember the heat I took for that one from the " working class white women" in not- so-then-liberal New York City. Of course. " Real " Black men don't have white mothers; they are racially " pure ". "Real " Black men don't go to Ivy league schools and law schools and certainly don't become Editor in Chief of the Law Review; that is wimpy wannabee crap. Like wanting the American Dream. Like making your hard working mother and grandmother proud; who needs it? Real Black men, I guess, wear gold chains, listen only to hip hop music and usually address white working women as " ho's " ( Cf honorary real Black man Don Imus ). Sheesh. Stay home. Stay out of my way. I will work my heart out for Obama despite his boring young constituency of yuppies with designer cell phones; hey, be kind to them; they are the future. You won't even get to be the past. Bend down, bend over, place head between legs. Now kiss ROE v. WADE, national health care, and your daughter( the one recently drafted, in the khaki camos on her way to Iraq, Iran and North Korea) goodbye.

They say a man is judged by the company he keeps. Do you think a fake Black man could ever attract and marry Michelle Obama? Please.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to re-live it.

Oh. And who am I? Just a tired old white geezer who doesn't join the AARP because I am not, at 73,retired. I can't retire. I need to work to survive.

This whole bitter dog in the manger thread disgusts me. Why do you want to be uglier than Carville, more obnoxious than Ickes, and more cowardly than Dr. Dean? Have you no fond memories of the real Democratic Party, or are you too young? The party of Harry Truman? The party of Bella Abzug? The party that the party of Hillary Rodham Clinton could become, if you really listened to her speech the other day?

I have seen all kinds of nonsense in my time but working white women who would vote Republican makes as much sense as earthworms who would go to live in a nest of newly hatched robin chicks.

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

...are expert at getting these lower income/lesser educated people to vote against their own best interests("...Ronald Reagan is gonna get me a job...") that you can bet your booty they are going after these woman. The main problem of the Democratic party is that they let the Republicans frame their message and then spend the rest of the campaign responding to that message. The Democrats need to define who they are and stay on that track thus minimizing the message created by the Republicans. For example, sure we are for rising taxes, but on the top 1% of incomes, and that we can actually help lower taxes on the bottom 70% of incomes.

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

I can not believe that so many supporters of Senator Clinton would cut off their collective noses to spite their collective faces and vote for John McCain in the autumn. To say that doing something so silly is counterproductive is, to be sure, the understatement of the New American Century.

There was a guy being interviewed earlier this week on the John Stewart program who described himself as a progressive and "gay as the day is long", who told the interviewer that he was planning on voting for MaCain if Barack Obama won the nomination. Me thinks he had better reassess the situation. All Clinton supporters should.

A McCain victory in November will probably mean the death knell of the American Experiment. Does that sound a tad alarmist? Time will tell.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Gentlemen, Start Your Rhetoric

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

This is already one of the dirtiest elections yet thanks to Hillary Clinton, and it seems that some of her supporters have the same approach to the election she does... damn democracy! If we don't get what we want, whether the majority voted for it or not we'll do our very best to torch the whole nation.

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

Obama has not sewn up the educated Democratic vote. I have more than one earned doctorate (Carnegie-Mellon U) and further advanced degrees (Arizona State, U Northern Iowa) etc, and have written far more than 100 books, and I am a lifelong Democrat who had the privilege of being Hardin Iowa County Democratic chair--and I will not vote for Obama in November. Not because of his race, but because of his lack of experience (voting "Present" in the Illinois Senate, and serving without distinction for two years in the US Senate), and limited knowledge of foreign affairs or people (three years in Indonesia does not qualify when you are a child), "exaggerating" (getting help from the Kennedy family to attend school in Hawaii when they were never involved, for example) to sponsoring nor writing any significant legislation. McCain would be a terrible president, so I will either not vote or vote for Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, since Obama hasn't the foresight to select Clinton as his VP (although technically the VP is chosen by the delegates, who--weak and without principles--usually just rubberstamp the nominees choice. As one who has studied elections for more than 50 years, everything points to a McCain landslide victory and he will also take the US Senate and the House back into GOP hands. Tragic, but primary voters and caucus goers in the Democratic Party prefer style over substance, and rhetoric over reality.

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

Senator Obama, We don’t know who you are. You have largely insulated yourself from scrutiny by the press and appear not to like debates. Your supporters say over and over, read his books. I’m not sure why the American people should have to buy your books contributing to your fortunes from royalties, before they have decided if they are willing to support you. Compromise. Why don’t you put your books on line, and I’ll read them. Thank you for your consideration.

Oh by the way, I see that one can no longer visit your website anonymously to evaluate your position statements, but have to sign up for a bunch of solicitation (which I DO NOT WANT). Not helpful to letting people get to know your stance.

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

I can't really speak for women but as a man who originally voted for Hillary in the primary, I am happy it finally turned out the way it did.

Frustration even bitterness at having your favored candidate lose can make people say dumb things.

But I believe they will settle down and understand what is really at stake for America. The more devoted those Hillary supporters were to her, the less likely they could ever consider McCain as an alternative. That would be an insult to Hillary.

Temporary anger that Obama won is not necessarily anger at Obama the nominee and they will support him because he is the only hope against McBush !

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

I am SOOOO Sick of hearing Hillary was the Womens Movement Champion- Clintonian Propaganda Machine at work - right out the Neo Con Handbook she got when they both enlisted!
As a Life long Libber who cut her teenage teeth on Ms and the Womens movement in the '70s I was OUTRAGED by everything Hillary did which Undermined OUR Efforts all these years.
How dare she pull a card she had NO Right Too!
Treated badly by the Press- She's F*CKIN ME!!
The Media did exactly what they were told and Threatened to Do- rolled out the Red Carpet, Opened the damn Door, Pulled out her Chair and Kissed her ass while she claimed it as Her Throne!
They intentionally Failed to review her record which did not just Cave to this corrupt Adminsitration- it PAVED they way!
She Faned anger regarding no 'Exit Stratedgy' but was sitting on the Committee responsible for the Oversight of When our Miliarty should be used- the mission, the equipment, the stratedgy, the exit plan, the justification of the use of 'independent contractors' AND the Care they would receive once they returned home (along with benefits for service)
The media not only did not cover her Gaffes (confession of complicity) - but made excuses for them..."Obliterate Iran " With NUKES???RFK is the reason I staying in the race- that was far more than even wishful thinking - after the third time I considered it a Request!
They never even bothered to dig up the association with a number of M.E. Royals who's stench still radiates off both HillyBilly!Reason he doesn't want to release his 'Sponosrs'.Hillary didn't say a word while she was the 'Heir Apparent'- not until she Felt she was not Being Courted did she pull that Card. A Card that if used Unnecessarily and for the Sole purpose of ones own Benefit undermines Everything Women have been struggling for over the last 35 yrs and have been Losing- A chance to Prove they have EARNED their Place at the Table.thanks for the $0.02 Raise over the last 3 decades, thanks for Letting Roe v Wade be used as a 'Wedge Issue' and is currently on the mat up to the 9 count AGAIN!
I voted for that SOB TWICE in the '90's
Hell Haveth NO Fury like an Ol' Dem Scorn
F*ck the Clintons and take their Dirty self promoting arrognant Politics with them!

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

Once again we see even at the outset of this election season the MSM ginning up a story where none exists. Thanks to this author for reporting reality. "Angry white women” is a neat spin-off on “angry white man,” but she, like he, doesn’t exist at any dramatic level. As the author notes there is a percentage of women voters who are not attracted to Obama’s message, but they tend to be blue collar, like blue collar men who support him in a smaller percentage than they have tended to support his rivals.

This is the same group of voters other democratic candidates, with possibly the exception of Bill Clinton, have had some difficulty attracting. That’s the bad news. The good news is there isn’t any one group who will decide this election.

If one looks at the very few special contests we’ve had so far and does some rather rudimentary math, the outcome for republicans tends to approach “devastatingly bleak” fairly rapidly, but reporting this would be similar to reporting grass growing in terms of generating some level of enthusiasm and excitement, so to “sell papers” the MSM will need to continue to do what the MSM now does best: no longer “report the news,” but make shit up.

The primaries were basically over following Super Tuesday. All of us who were analyzing things closely knew this and there were several pundits on news programs who lasted for about 3 seconds of an interview cycle who were also reporting this, but most the media continued to concoct a “story” out of pretty much thin air as “Hillary was making a comeback” and “Barack was faltering.” Whether someone supported one candidate or the other is immaterial; the fact remained that by doing some rather rudimentary math Senator Clinton could not get to the nomination without a Huckabee miracle intervening.

The same is true in this current environment. Obama could potentially trounce McCain by numbers rivaling any we have seen. There are some obstacles. There’s a huge right wing attack machine that will make the negatives on Barack go way up. There is a percentage of the stunningly ignorant who will not support him because of the color of his skin. There are probably going to be some gaffes and YouTube/Reverend Wright moments that are going to turn off a certain percentage of the population.

Here’s the thing, in any election, both camps will have the same challenges. This is fine when the camps start on equal footing. But in this election, they are not. McCain is dragged down by his loving teddy bear embrace of the Administration in the figurative and physical sense. And Iraq may seem to be going well, but the vast majority of the population has simply had enough and has declared “Mission Accomplished” and decided it’s time to come home regardless of “how well the war is going.” The vast majority of these folks aren’t changing their minds to give McCain another few years to “see if we can’t get a win out of this deal.” And, there’s not a thinking person alive in the democratic party and probably many independents who believe putting two more super-conservative justices on the Supreme Court is a good idea and that’s what will happen in a McCain presidency. And, there’s an economy that is imploding each and everyday and no sitting president’s party has ever been elected with a sour economy (remember, “it’s the economy, stupid?”).

The hurdles for McCain are much too great and the negatives on Obama cannot get that high. It’s simply not possible. So we can go ahead and gin up stories about how close this is going to be, but realistically speaking, as it was in the primaries, the “hair thin” victory Obama may achieve isn’t going to be that thin and if it is, victory by 1 is as good as victory by 1,000,000, but “angry white women” is still a good, humorous spin-off.

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

Selling the raft of shit the DNC is trying to force feed us with. Current politics isn't about serving the needs of the people,it's about the appearence of serving those needs. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have one big overpowering problem....THEY DON'T WALK THEIR TALK!!! Sure the package the Obama team ( the DNC),have great ideas and if the really did them we would have a better country.
But they've always held out the 'Higher Vision Carrot'. The truth is,they rarely deliver. Why? Because they are just as bought and paid for as the republicans.
The only true answer is full citizen particioation in governance. Consensus decision
making, 7 generational planning and respecting how Earth gives life to all of us and doing what's needed to ensure that keeps happening,even at the expense of Big Business.
So far.all we've been given is a great Hollywood story about percieved 'firsts'.
I see no strong Peace Policy from the Obama camp,just less bloody promises. I see no support for the Bill of Rights, just friendships that can be ended when it's good for the public image.
So what does Mr. Obama really hang his hopes on? That we're as dumb as a sack of hammers and will suck up their bullshit like a sponge.
Sorry Lil' Brother....We're not!!!
Draft Jeffrey7 for Prez in '08

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

The voters of this country have several options for the presidential election this November. They can vote for Obama. They can vote for McCain. They can stay at home and not vote at all. They can not vote for the presidential but vote for the Congressional candidates. It would help people to make up their minds if the media focused on real issues and did not fall for the propaganda put out by special interest groups like Swift Boat Veterans and others. A series of debates on the economy, the occupation of Iraq, the loss of our rights through legislation such as the Patriot Act, the war in Afghanistan and the "war" on terror, what we are going to do about global warming and climate changes, what we are going to do about job outsourcing in this global "free market" economy, how we are going to get healthcare for all citizens, and the list goes on. We appear to be at a crossroads in our civilization. We need to be informed to make better choices in our leaders and government. People bring their heritage and culture, their religion or lack thereof, their life experiences, their education, their economic condition and their concerns for their families to the election process. Every group of voters may turn out to be critical to this election. I'm not sure that a candidate can write off a group of voters without at least trying to reach out and connect with them. Obama has serious considerations facing him in his choice for Vice President and his government policies.

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

For comparison, see what Al Jazeera is saying about the Obama vs McCain issues:

Public anger

Despite Bush's upbeat economic analysis Al Jazeera's senior Washington correspondent Rob Reynolds says that there are two alternate realities in the US economy today.

"On the one hand there are Americans who are really struggling even to find money for food while President Bush is talking of the liquidity of markets and that has created some anger among the public.

"And that is something Obama is trying to tap into and is trying to tie McCain to all that has gone before."

With Americans struggling to pay for record high $4-a-gallon petrol, unemployment up and consumer confidence down, Obama is attempting to focus the general election campaign on the economy.

The economy is more familiar territory for Obama whereas the more experienced McCain has used national security and foreign policy as the centerpiece for his campaign.

McCain has repeatedly accused Obama of being too inexperienced to lead the country.

Stimulus package

Obama renewed his call for a $50bn stimulus package as a way to try to spur consumer spending and jolt new life into the economy, and a $10bn fund for homeowners caught up in the housing crisis.

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," he said.

Obama, 46, the Illinois senator who is hoping to be America's first black president, charged that McCain's support for extending Bush's tax cuts would allow $2 trillion in corporate tax breaks, including $1.2bn for Exxon Mobil Corp, which had earnings last year of $40.61bn."

Screw the American left wing press, the American right wing press, the American centrist press - they all blow chunks, and are mostly propaganda outlets serving secret exterior interests.

Welcome to the Evil Empire and its Propaganda Minions...

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

try, "Why The Elephants Were Never Seen Again".

Barack doesn't need to tailor his campaign to pander to anyone. His message is of inclusion for all people, and his campaign has struck a chord on many instruments.

You're making a number of assumptions, one of which is that Clinton actually still had the support of a large bloc of voters by the time she so arrogantly called upon them to e-mail their disfavor of the process which didn't choose her. According to a poster here, the e-mail count was taken down two or three days after her exhortation, maybe as a sign of good faith to the influential supporters who told her to withdraw, or maybe because the response wasn't what she'd hoped.

The most obvious mistake, of course, is the reliance on that famous Population Statistic Zombie. You know, the one that walks around vacantly wearing a tattered t-shirt that says: "Over 50, White, Female= I Vote For HILL-A-REE. I see them wandering around all day long, occasionally bumping into their friends wearing the "Latino Descent=I Don't Vote For Blacks" emblem.

Living, breathing people understand that Barack Obama doesn't need to court any population statistic, because he speaks to individuals, who ultimately make up their own minds. In fact, if anyone maintains that there's a significant number of people of any description who will vote for McCain out of spite, we could probably predict the number by looking at another statistic: antipsychotic drug prescriptions filled, state by state.

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

I am so sick and tired of articles perpetuating this myth that Barack Obama hasn't done ENOUGH to connect with white working class voters. I mean are we all listening to the same person and seeing the same things? No, the Archie Bunker contingent and the spoiled rotten second-wave feminists who are mad about Hilary not winning have pretty much decided to screw America and vote for Bush II. They'll be the same ones complaining when their homes are foreclosed upon and they can't get healthcare for their families. And don't worry, the rest of us will suffer just as much for their idiocy, since McCain will stack the Supreme Court with judges so far to the right, they'll make Scalia look like a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Or as one self-centered female troll said, "Roe v. Wade will only effect the states that outlaw abortion"--which means that poor, working-class and rural women are going to be screwed more than ever.

This kind of attitude illustrates graphically just what is wrong with white women's version of feminism; moreover it proves what is wrong with the blinders that privilege bestows. Are white working class women's issues different from those working class women of color? No, they are not. We all want the and need the same things--affordable health care, affordable housing, a stable economy and decent education/child care. Obama has addressed these needs and still the whiny white woman gang can't seem to wrap their meager brains around the concept of WE. Perhaps anorexic Ann Coulter was right--perhaps it was a bad idea to give women the right to vote (especially THAT group).

What angers me the most (and don't anyone tell me it I don't have the right to be angry at such childish stupidity) is that it's all about THEM. Hilary wasn't the candidate for ALL AMERICANS, just for a segment of women who didn't give a damn about Hilary's backing of the war and of her Rovian-like campaign tactics. These women wanted a woman in the Oval Ofiice and cared NOTHING whether she was qualified or not. Then to add insult upon injury, they whined that there are NO OTHER qualified female candidates to run for president! How insulting when we have Nancy Pelosi as the first female Speaker of the House. What about Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who has more experience in her pinky finger than Hilary Clinton has in her entire record!

When I see Obama and hear his speeches and see the people who are his supporters, I see AMERICA as it really is. I see the lines between race, class, gender, age and sexuality blurred. I see people coming together and feeling a drastic need to change our country and take it back from the years of frustration, cynicism and "us versus them" rhethoric that has dominated the political landscape. I see people not swayed by the distractions of Rev. Wright and Father Phleger because none of this crap has anything to do about the high cost of gas and the number of Americans losing their homes.

These so-called working-class women might be willing to sell the rest of us down the river out of spite, but I will work my damndest to see that it doesn't happen.

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

There is no there there.

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

Obama, Israel and AIPAC By URI AVNERY

And before anybody starts shouting "antiSemitism", Uri Avnery is a well known Israeli peace activist. He certainly has the ideological simile correct:

"The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel."

Avnery does not explore the material roots of this simile however. It lies in the global U.S. military industrial complex, of which the State of Israel is an important component part. Now the military industries of other key countries such as Britain and Japan are also deeply interlocked with that of the U.S., but none of these countries have their global political outlook so saturated with this connection, to the point of an all encompassing paranoid militarism, as does the State of Israel - and the United States.

That is why the whole U.S. political regime, including Obama, obsequiously attends to AIPAC - not to pledge "allegiance" to Israel, but to the U.S. military industrial complex of which it is a part and whose policies it is such a representative sample. AIPAC and the neocons merely position themselves as the prime political ideologues and operatives for this complex. They are merely key political orchestrators.

That means Obama is pledging to do nothing about the central problem facing Americans today: that of the bloated and overbearing military apparatus and its policies that are bankrupting the U.S. economy. Unless this key problem is tackled, none of the other issues can or will be addressed.

Yes, the level of political discourse on the U.S. "Left" is now reaching abysmal new lows as "progressives" line up behind Obama and with it, line up behind entire MSM line of "discussion" of secondary wedge issues. This goes also for proposals such as those reported by Al Jazeera:

"Stimulus package"

"Obama renewed his call for a $50bn stimulus package as a way to try to spur consumer spending and jolt new life into the economy, and a $10bn fund for homeowners caught up in the housing crisis."

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," he said."

"Obama, 46, the Illinois senator who is hoping to be America's first black president, charged that McCain's support for extending Bush's tax cuts would allow $2 trillion in corporate tax breaks, including $1.2bn for Exxon Mobil Corp, which had earnings last year of $40.61bn."

The U.S. "Left" is especially sloppy and quite downright ignorant when it comes to financial economics. A redistribution of income away from the tiny minority, less than 1%, of the owners of Corporate America is surely desperately and sorely needed, but Obama's proposal to simply hand this out to individuals does not only fail to address the fundamental problem - the extraordinary wasteful structure of a U.S. economy that consumes 25% of the world's petroleum, while equivalent countries such as Japan easily get by on a consumption rate 40-50% less - but actually deliberately exacerbates the problem as it intends that individuals consume these redistributed funds by...fueling their autos with more (now expensive) gasoline!

(continued next post)

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

These funds would be better spent restructuring the U.S. transportation and housing "system" so that people could afford to live in-city - precisely where the housing bubble has left housing ridiculously overpriced - and not totally dependent upon the individual automobile, made possible by the massive, 100% government subsidized highway system - by redirecting such funding into construction of a truly comprehensive and high-speed rail system, both in-urban and intercity. Such a restructuring is especially needed now as intercity airline travel will increasingly become a luxury of the wealthy, as it is in the rest of the world. Unless you are willing to abolish the wealthy altogether - something I would certainly favor but not even the most fervent Obama supporter would claim their candidate would ever support in a blue moon, heck they are funding his campaign! - that is way it is going to be.

Not only does Obama's proposal deliberately perpetuate the waste - note that he'll "use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills" - but note that this is a "windfall profits" tax only. That means this is only a temporary revenue stream, and all the oil majors have to do is stop reporting "windfall profits" to turn off this stream. When that happens and after this revenue has been squandered in the same wasteful channels of consumption, the poor U.S. consumer will still be trapped in the same rotten structure! You might as well set the U.S. consumer loose to loot the shopping malls for a day!

As with the problem of the U.S. military industrial complex - an even larger structural problem facing the U.S. population, one that also threatens and corrupts the health of public politics in the U.S. - Obama presents no program to concretely address very fundamental structural problems of the U.S. political economy, problems that no longer seem to lurk off on some distant horizon but increasing press down upon the American people as, more and more, an immediate crisis.

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

THAT IS THE BIGGER QUESTION AND THE BIGGER ISSUE!

Obama is the Best Candidate for Choice

By Frances Kissling, Huffington Post. Posted February 18, 2008.

As a woman who has spent her life fighting for choice, I believe that Obama's progressive vision is the one that truly embraces reproductive justice.

http://www.web.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/77289/

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

in this group.

Duh! It's the policies, stupid.

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

in this group.

Duh! It's the policies, stupid.

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

We are winning and Obama has built his campain on the USA losing in Iraq.

This is from the Wall Street Journal today;

America is very close to succeeding in Iraq. The "near-strategic defeat" of al Qaeda in Iraq described by CIA Director Michael Hayden last month in the Washington Post has been followed by the victory of the Iraqi government's security forces over illegal Shiite militias, including Iranian-backed Special Groups. The enemies of Iraq and America now cling desperately to their last bastions, while the political process builds momentum.


Reuters
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki presses the flesh in Basra, March 29, 2008.
These tremendous gains remain fragile and could be lost to skillful enemy action, or errors in Baghdad or Washington. But where the U.S. was unequivocally losing in Iraq at the end of 2006, we are just as unequivocally winning today.

By February 2008, America and its partners accomplished a series of tasks thought to be impossible. The Sunni Arab insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq were defeated in Anbar, Diyala and Baghdad provinces, and the remaining leaders and fighters clung to their last urban outpost in Mosul. The Iraqi government passed all but one of the "benchmark" laws (the hydrocarbon law being the exception, but its purpose is now largely accomplished through the budget) and was integrating grass-roots reconciliation with central political progress. The sectarian civil war had ended.


Good news in Iraq could sink Obama in 08!

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

Read "The Weekly Standard" and go to Newsmax.com. You can learn about the two presidential candidates and what they stand for. Decide for yourself who the better man will be. I have decided, even though I always thought myself a democrat, I realize I vote for the man, not the party. Mccain has our votes now only because I am taking the time to get to know what each man stands for.

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

If AlterNet wants to keep every single genuine person here from saying, "Forget it!", then it needs to start kicking out obvious spam and scam artists for posting and re-posting yards of material, taking over discussions with lunatic theories, baiting, taunting and otherwise getting in the way of what we come here for.

I'm not saying there's no room for dissent, but goddam it, a fool could go through a thread and pick out the characters I'm talking about, who have multiplied three-fold in the last month.

I'm a few short outbursts away from giving this place a miss as more trouble than it's worth.

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

Ms. Greenberg provides a narrow picture of Clinton supporters. We cross the lines of race, culture, education, class, age, sexual orientation, and gender in support of Senator Hillary Clinton, and call to task the Democrat Party to assess its interpretation and application of the Democratic process and leadership. Where was the Democrat Party leadership in its silence toward protecting Civil Liberties during the past 8 years, and why its silence during the recent media onslaught of misogeny?

A core social illness at the root of every issue lies misogeny, which is clearly on the table for the American people to view and reflect upon its cure. I challenge the "The Huffington Post" and Ms. Greenberg to illuminate the expanded landscape of Clinton supporters for its readers. I am among many Clinton supporters who have earned advanced degrees whose actions and achievements continue to work for disenfranchised voices--there are no boundaries or lines in support of Civil Liberties. Senator Clinton stood up and spoke up for all of us and modeled true leadership. The problem is with a leaderless Democrat Party, not with Clinton supporters, regardless of educated or non-college status, as the "The Huffington Post" article states.

The narrowing of the field and the article's subtle connotation of "angry white women"is an example of the dismissal of women voices, and holds a non-applicable connotation as to why Clinton supporters are not embracing Senator Obama. The Democrat Party is responsible for distancing those voters who may NOT support its presumptive nominee in the General Election this November. We are still waiting to see actionable leadership beyond oratory skills.

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

Since winning the primary, Barack Obama "clarified" where he stands on a number of issues that seem to have been "misunderstood" prior to that. This is especially true for that vast range of the population encompassing the poor/working class (i.e., Americans below the middle class). These were Obama's strongest supporters because they believed Obama would bring the changes vital to opening the doors that now firmly shut low-income people out.

Women in the US, regardless of color, are disproportionately poor. The fact that Obama stated his intentions to continue the social policies that so powerfully contributed to this fact, and that actually decreased access to those things that are vital to moving out of poverty (education, real job skills training, health care) is a pretty good indication that Obama is unconcerned about "angry white women".

At this point, Obama really doesn't need to try to "win over" any demographic because his opponent is so much worse.

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