It should be issue #1 in the campaign, but Clinton and Obama have softened their stances.

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

The news reporters have been wrong so often that I wonder why they're allowed to go on babbling. Anyone else would be fired. No law says we have to be honest with people taking surveys. Demographics no longer apply. Could it be that we no longer want to be predictable sheep? This election says alot about the voters. The smart candidates will just have to kiss everybody's ass,just to make sure. Then wait for the results. That's the way it should be. Thanks, ANNA

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

"The "surge is working" narrative's not reality-based, and when it comes to Iraq, we've seen the spin give way to the ugly facts time and time again."

That's true. Iraq, like 9/11, taxes, gay marriage, etc., is primarily an imaginary black hole into which people throw nightmarish fantasies inflated beyond all sense of realistic logic or proportions, with lots of "help" from the spin masters and political leaders of America's [f]right-wing. Special effects are provided by the corporate media machine, often in the form of cropping and rubber stamping out pieces of the picture that don't fit with the official story of impending doom if the dangerous [c]left-wing should reunite around what passes for liberal ideas in the U.S. What is left is a cartoonish picture of the future, populated by unrealistic, two-dimensional caricatures of so-called political "leaders," which a majority of the population accepts, to varying degrees, as real and important, much as many people relate to the characters in television sitcoms as if they were friends or neighbors.

The point is, it really doesn't matter which way the true winds of war blow in Iraq. The theme of the story is already set: America must defeat "the enemy" or something really, really awful (fill in the darkness with personal visions of terror and doom) will happen to America--as opposed to the awful things that are already happening, but which most people manage to blot out with help from the fantasy factory described above. John McCain is poised to use this virtual reality to his complete advantage. Obama and Clinton will be undone by the mainstream myths about America's involvement in Iraq because neither of them are able to muster a compelling fantasy of how wonderful things will be if the U.S. scales down or leaves Iraq during the course of the next presidency. Without concrete visions of successful withdrawal from Iraq in the near term, the will to continue fighting the unknown horrors of the darkness will persist, even as the vast majority of people wish it would all end immediately.

On top of that, Clinton has enough negatives to cripple her chances of running against anyone. Obama will suffer from the rising racist tide of a nation that can feel itself slipping into yet another black hole of fear, this one consisting of economic despair and displacement. The Democrats are renown for their ability snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and they are well on their way to doing so, again, in 2008.

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

Those are the ones who still believe that Iraq had WMDs and ties to 9/11. In every speech he gives and in every debate McCain repeats the Bush/Cheney/GOP lines even though the fact they were all lies have been ADMITTED by the whole rotten crew. Cheney retracted his admission within a few hours and went back to the MANTRA, but if Bush is asked point blank, he will now still say Iraq didn't have WMDs or ties to 9/11 but I don't think he's ever conceded on ties to Al Queda. No one EVER calls McCain on those lies. But then he'd just do what they all do, which is deny deny deny. "I never said that."
I also don't understand how so many "politicians" who HATE AMERICA WITH A PASSION NEVER SEEN BEFORE KEEP GETTING ELECTED. Every single one of them wants to destroy this government from within. There must have been hints somewhere along the way. How'd they all get overlooked? It's like corporate sabotage on a grander scale.

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

. . . can you offer some manner of explanation as to why McCain is polling ahead of both Obama and Clinton in recent polls? I threw up in my mouth a little when I read that.

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

Given the Democratic propensity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the analysis sketched out is a valid concern. But it does depend on a pair of variables that are by no means a given: McCain and Hillary as the final nominees. Granted, there's no reason to believe either candidate might not get their party's nomination. But suppose we have a matchup of, say, Hillary vs. Romney, Obama vs. McCain, or even Obama vs. Romney? Then the variables change up into something else again.

Still, with the scenario laid down as such, I can easily see it going down that way. Hillary has burned too many bridges over the last decade and McCain, fairly or not, is seen as being more genuine. By all means, continue to hope for the best...but keep the possibilities in mind.

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

ALL of the interest is about Obama. I talked to people today that will likely not vote if Clinton is the nominee. Maybe that is particular to my neck of the woods, but I do worry.

There has always been a core of progressives who vote Democrat but don't always vote if the candidate doesn't motivate them. Many Gen X'ers fall into that category, and much of the excitement around Obama is among the under 50 crowd.

As for the war, the economy (and Britney's free fall, of course) is the issue taking more media space every day. As the economy gets worse, the war will fall off the radar. Only Americans directly effected will follow events in the Middle East.

I have done anti-war work during recessions. People don't listen when their biggest concern is survival. McCain is a crypto-fascist; this will fool people into voting for him.

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

We have a president who, if he were any more unpopular, would have had his ears cut off like Samuel K. Doe. (Wait, is that an option?)

Yet, if a Democrat wins the presidency, it will be by the skin of his or her teeth.

Am I the only one who finds that pitiful?

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

against both Obama and Clinton among drug war abolitionists. Nader starting an exploratory committee was greeted with more enthusiasm than I expected to see among drug war opponents. The poor treatment of Gravel and Ron Paul by the two dominance parties has left a sour taste for the parties and their candidates in the mouths of Americans who oppose the crime fostering, terrorist funding, Jim Crow drug war that is supported by the major candidates of both dominance parties.

This is already proving to be a blind-side liability for Democrats as it has been in presidential elections since 1996.

I know know that I will not vote for any candidate with a record of support for the war on drugs. I will write-in a personal choice or "NONE OF THE ABOVE" if the Greens or Libertarians can't give me an alternative.

Until the Democrats distinguish themselves from the GOP on the war on drugs the Democrats will continue to drive out of their party liberal and left leaning social justice, human rights, civil liberties advocates, who oppose Richard Nixon's war on drugs.

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

Whether it's McCain, Romney or Nancy Reagan.

Whether it's Hillary, Obama or my old Howard Dean lawn sign.

It simply astonishes me that, in what we're saying is going to be a close, imperiled election, people are considering diverting their votes to a third party. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Jesus!

Yeah, I'm a stark pragmatist. I don't have a shred of romance inside my cell walls. Kucinich doesn't charm me. Love Nader, won't vote for him. I recycle, buy local, belong to a biodiesel collective, but I would never consider a Green Party vote. Not this time.

Because I need to see the Lethal Party of Death out of the god-forgotten White House more than I need to show how smart I am, how committed to progressive principles, how demanding I am of perfection and how much I need to honor my personal tastes above unity and collective effort.

I'm not only going to vote for the Democratic candidate, I'm going to work for him or her to get as many Democratic voters to the polls as I can.

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

is that the Democrat support for the war on drugs funds terrorism. It buys the bombs and bullets that the Taliban and alQaeda are using on American troops TODAY!

The prohibition economics of the war on drugs also subsidizes as much as 70% of the crime on American streets today.

The war on drugs abandons American children to the morals and ethics of addict drug dealers and their drug gang bosses. this causes far more addiction than would be the case if America use democratic institutions of regulation, licensing and taxation to put responsible members of the community in between children and drugs.

Prohibition policies cause violence. The highest year for deaths of police officers in the history of America was at the height of the alcohol prohibition. the annual death rate for police tripled during that time and receded from the high of 172 officers killed by gunfire in 1930 to just 40 officers shot dead in 1943. The rate declined every year for ten years after the alcohol prohibition regardless of the economic hardships of the Great Depression. SEE: peace officer mortality higher during prohibition policy enforcement

According to Boston Univ. economist Jeffrey Miron, who analyzed the issue: "The homicide rate was high in the 1920-1933 period, when constitutional prohibition of alcohol was in effect, as it was in the 1970-1990 period, when drug prohibition was enforced to a stringent degree. After repeal of alcohol prohibition, the homicide rate dropped quickly and remained low during a period when drug prohibition, although in existence, was not vigorously enforced. And the homicide rate was lowest at the beginning of the sample, when neither alcohol nor drug prohibition existed at the federal level and only in a minor way at the state level."

The drug warrior leaders of the Democratic Party ignore these FACTS even though I know for fact that they are aware of these facts. All of these facts and more have been presented to congressional committees over the past five years.

Democratic leaders are too afraid of the right-wing to do the right thing. They do not deserve the support of the American people while they continue to fear the right-wing of America.

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

the democrats' ability to make the slam dunk right in the toilet.

If we're gonna stay in Iraq--and it looks like we will--with American lives on the line voters will go for up-front honesty & determination about an endless occupation of Iraq before they will vote for the wussified, kinder & gentler endless occupation of Iraq we're getting from Clinton & Obama.

The "Dim" leadership are the ones out of touch if anybody is.

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