Presidential Primary - How are you going to vote?

It seems like California will actually get a chance to have an effect in the presidential primary for a change! So how are you going to vote and why?

I'll start.

I'm going to vote for Kucinich, not because I think he's the best person for the job, but because it sends a message, as much as my 1 little vote will do! Frankly I'm not sure who I think would be best between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Obama sounds like his heart is in the right place but I don't know that he's up to the job just yet. And, frankly, I haven't paid enough attention to really make an informed choice.

I figure that on one hand, my vote doesn't really matter, in that I doubt that someone is going to win by one vote! On the other hand, I don't buy the flawed logic that my vote "doesn't count" or I'm "throwing away my vote" if I don't vote for the winner, or even someone who doesn't even have a chance of winning.

So that said, I'm going to vote for Kucinich! By voting for Kucinch, I think my vote will have a bigger impact. If he does better than expected, or better than 2004, by just a percentage point or two it will be noticed by the Democrats as signal that the party is getting increasingly liberal. Hopefully they will put that in their pipe and smoke it!

So that's my :2cents:, for what it's worth. How about you? How are you going to navigate this critical election?

Having a BA in Political Science from SSU (2003), I have a lot to say about this kind of stuff but I will keep it very short and sweet and enter into details later.

I have already voted absentee for Hillary Clinton. Although I have voted for her for different reasons, for me it was a no-brainer. Not only does Hillary have the best chances of becoming the first woman president (beating the Republican candidate in November) but she is clearly the best qualified of the entire field of candidates from either party.

If I were to vote my conscience, I would throw my vote away on Kucinich. If we had an electoral system like the Europeans do (Proportional Representation and run-offs) then we would all be able to vote our conscience. And our votes would not be wasted on lost causes. That's why I am a member of Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER, www.cfer.org). We have helped to get Instant Run-off Voting in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Davis, and other places.

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

It seems like California will actually get a chance to have an effect in the presidential primary for a change! So how are you going to vote and why?

I'll start.

I'm going to vote for Kucinich...

---

I am not very knowledgeable about poly sci. I have sent my absentee ballot in and voted for Kucinich. He and I are in agreement about most issues so he most closely represents my views. I debated about being female and my wanting a matriarchy already, wasting my vote on someone who is not likely to win, not in small part by his having no debate time, and the young afro american male who I would love to support were it not for the gut feeling that we are missing a critical piece of that story...all is not as it seems. Everyone needs to step on the absentee ballot bandwagon until the electronic voting debacle has played itself out. I voted for the guy who most closely represents my belief system, as I believe that was the original idea of the founding fathers. I also harbor thoughts about the total state of corruption of the system and the futility of participation...and then the little hope remains barely alive peeking out from under the bed........

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

Having a BA in Political Science from SSU (2003), I have a lot to say about this kind of stuff but I will keep it very short and sweet and enter into details later.

I have already voted absentee for Hillary Clinton. Although I have voted for her for different reasons, for me it was a no-brainer. Not only does Hillary have the best chances of becoming the first woman president (beating the Republican candidate in November) but she is clearly the best qualified of the entire field of candidates from either party.

If I were to vote my conscience, I would throw my vote away on Kucinich. If we had an electoral system like the Europeans do (Proportional Representation and run-offs) then we would all be able to vote our conscience. And our votes would not be wasted on lost causes. That's why I am a member of Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER, www.cfer.org). We have helped to get Instant Run-off Voting in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Davis, and other places.

Edward

---

I believe that in almost exactly a year, either a woman or a not-totally-white man will be the acting President of the United States I will proudly support whichever of them wins the nomination.

I'm about to cast my absentee ballot. I'm still torn between my personal preference, Edwards, and Clinton. Either one of them has the wherewithal I believe, to be a fine POTUS. I am troubled by Obama's focus on "transcending parties". It's a fine ideal to work for. But I believe we need someone who can do the hard bartering it will take to get reticent entrenched parties moving towards curing our nation. I remember when Jimmy Carter voiced similar intentions as Obama's. Unfortunately the net result was 4 years of complete gridlock, and poor public morale. - - and the near destruction of the Dem party, followed by 25 years of "Reaganomics".

Suggestion: Barry, why don't you add a poll to this topic? There may be people who would like to indicate who their preferred candidate would be, but who would prefer to remain anonymous?

Some suggested poll options:

Biden
Brownback
Clinton
Edwards
Giuliani
Huckabee
Kucinich
McCain
Obama
Paul
Romney
A Third Party or Independent registered candidate_________.
I'm going to write-in my choice.
I can't in good conscience vote for any of them.
I don't vote.

I'm going to pass on the poll. I'm more interested in hearing people's reasoning.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tars:

Suggestion: Barry, why don't you add a poll to this topic? There may be people who would like to indicate who their preferred candidate would be, but who would prefer to remain anonymous?

Some suggested poll options:

Biden
Brownback
Clinton
Edwards
Giuliani
Huckabee
Kucinich
McCain
Obama
Paul
Romney
A Third Party or Independent registered candidate_________.
I'm going to write-in my choice.
I can't in good conscience vote for any of them.
I don't vote.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

It seems like California will actually get a chance to have an effect in the presidential primary for a change! So how are you going to vote and why?

---

I was a Biden man myself, and although he's on the ballot I want to respect the fact that he withdrew. Kucinich strikes me as too in love with his ideas and principles, and I don't trust people like that. I'd be more than happy with any of the big three, but on the other hand it seems that if there's one candidate with a chance of losing all 50 states it's Hillary. Between the two that are left, Obama is exciting but risky, so I lean towards Edwards.

Why is Obama risky?

If Hillary were to lose all 50 states, are you talking about the November contest?

Thanks,

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

I was a Biden man myself, and although he's on the ballot I want to respect the fact that he withdrew. Kucinich strikes me as too in love with his ideas and principles, and I don't trust people like that. I'd be more than happy with any of the big three, but on the other hand it seems that if there's one candidate with a chance of losing all 50 states it's Hillary. Between the two that are left, Obama is exciting but risky, so I lean towards Edwards.

---

BREAKING NEWS!

Kucinich abandons White House bid
Formal announcement expected Friday
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22827738/

Quote:

---

CLEVELAND - Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is abandoning his second bid for the White House.

In an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the congressman said he was quitting the race and would made a formal announcement Friday.

"I want to continue to serve in Congress," he told the newspaper.

Kucinich said he will not endorse another Democrat in the primary.

---

that's because Kucinich is a smart man and supports this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

Why is Obama risky?

If Hillary were to lose all 50 states, are you talking about the November contest?

Thanks,

Edward

---

About November, yes, and Obama strikes me as risky because he's untried, inexperienced.

The question may become: do you want a strong, experienced politician at the helm? I particularly don't. From what I read the power is in my reps. I fear the strong man in power.:2cents:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

About November, yes, and Obama strikes me as risky because he's untried, inexperienced.

---

I suggest you might want to take another look at Obama. He is definitely not the lightweight you think he is. He was a leader in the Illinois legislature, authoring and getting passed truly progressive bills, like the toughest ethics legislation in the US, and videotaping of police interrogations in capital cases (a bill that no Dems or Repubs would get behind at first, but he brought them all together and persuaded the governor, who'd publicly said he didnt support it, to sign it). This is all in his book Audacity of Hope. The man stands up for what he believes in and has the determination and skills to accomplish his goals.

But as important is the fact that his success so far has been a true grassroots effort, involving millions of folks who are sick of the way politics is done in this country. If he is successful he will be the only modern day POTUS who didnt sell his soul to corporate donors in order to get elected. Do you realize what this would mean? He has shown that the people united can raise as much in small donations as the Clinton machine has raised from their corporate sponsors (the largest of which is the military/industrial
sector--so much for trimming the defense budget under her). Obama has not taken any contributions from corporate donors, PACs or lobbyists, yet has raised as much as the Clinton machine. This is historic, nay, revolutionary!

Folks, we have a real choice here, between politics as usual (take big money from global corps and keep their lackeys on all the federal commissions that regulate their industries, as Clinton did in his presidency) or Obama, a man elected and indebted only to a huge grassroots effort, owing his allegiance to us, the struggling middle class, and not the corporations that have no morality. Obama has the grit, the vision, the smarts, and the integrity to be a true change agent, which is what these times are begging for. Please join this true movement for radical change in American politics.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:

BREAKING NEWS!

Kucinich abandons White House bid
Formal announcement expected Friday
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22827738/



that's because Kucinich is a smart man and supports this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

---

Kucinich supporters, there is a whole new forum on the Ron Paul forums for you. Check it out:
https://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=100

A compelling argument.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by EngagedBuddhist:

I suggest you might want to take another look at Obama. He is definitely not the lightweight you think he is. He was a leader in the Illinois legislature, authoring and getting passed truly progressive bills, like the toughest ethics legislation in the US, and videotaping of police interrogations in capital cases (a bill that no Dems or Repubs would get behind at first, but he brought them all together and persuaded the governor, who'd publicly said he didnt support it, to sign it). This is all in his book Audacity of Hope. The man stands up for what he believes in and has the determination and skills to accomplish his goals.

But as important is the fact that his success so far has been a true grassroots effort, involving millions of folks who are sick of the way politics is done in this country. If he is successful he will be the only modern day POTUS who didnt sell his soul to corporate donors in order to get elected. Do you realize what this would mean? He has shown that the people united can raise as much in small donations as the Clinton machine has raised from their corporate sponsors (the largest of which is the military/industrial
sector--so much for trimming the defense budget under her). Obama has not taken any contributions from corporate donors, PACs or lobbyists, yet has raised as much as the Clinton machine. This is historic, nay, revolutionary!

Folks, we have a real choice here, between politics as usual (take big money from global corps and keep their lackeys on all the federal commissions that regulate their industries, as Clinton did in his presidency) or Obama, a man elected and indebted only to a huge grassroots effort, owing his allegiance to us, the struggling middle class, and not the corporations that have no morality. Obama has the grit, the vision, the smarts, and the integrity to be a true change agent, which is what these times are begging for. Please join this true movement for radical change in American politics.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by EngagedBuddhist:

I suggest you might want to take another look at Obama...
Folks, we have a real choice here, between politics as usual ... and the integrity to be a true change agent, which is what these times are begging for. Please join this true movement for radical change in American politics.

---

He's starting to sound like politics as usual. He's sounding pretty negative lately...

This is going to be one ugly election!

I keep hearing a lot of talk about change from folks here in Wacco and the media and the candidates. But if we want to see the kind of change that we desire then we have to reform the system, the political institutions, the electoral laws, and how government, political parties and voting are organized.

If you keep the same frame of mind you (everyone) have now, you will always be disappointed--guaranteed. None of the candidates can deliver the kind of change many Americans are clambering for because the obstacles are systemic. The system must be fundamentally changed, something that most of the wealthy and powerful do not want and will not allow to happen.

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

He's starting to sound like politics as usual. He's sounding pretty negative lately...

This is going to be one ugly election!

---

MY :2cents: I am still conflicted about the primary election on February 5, 2008. I have always dreamed of seeing a woman elected to the office of President of the United States, having been told from a very young age that WE could become anything we wanted to. It appears that the dream could be realized in my lifetime, and I'd love to see how it plays out. My fear is that having Hillary Clinton as President would not be the same as electing a woman, because she plays at politics like a wealthy, beholden, privileged, white male. I'm afraid that entrusting THIS woman with my dream could screw it up for women for a long, long time, if not forever. On the other hand, I think she has some matriarchal tendencies, and could impart some female sensibility in the job including nurturing, empathy, compassion, and fairness. I think she'll once again make health-care a priority issue, and might be more successful working within a different framework.

Barack Obama brings more conflict for me. I'm not sure he is mature or experienced enough to lead the country. And although I'm not totally convinced by his rhetoric, I do sense that he is thoughtful and intelligent and fundamentally supports peace and justice. These are my biggest concerns for our future, in addition to restoring sanity in our relationship with the earth. I would love to see a black man (or anyone who is not a member of the "good 'ol boy's fraternity") win the highest office in our country. I think we are ready, and I think he would work very hard to live up to the significance of this responsibility.

I also believe John Edwards would make a decent president, although I don't believe he is much more experienced than Obama. I think he is being systematically squeezed out of the running by tightly focused and controlled media hype that is in part being orchestrated by the neo-cons. If a woman or a black man becomes the democratic nominee, they will make that the entire focus of the race, and the real issues will be diminished. I believe Clinton has the most experience (life and politics) of all the democratic candidates (Dennis Kucinich notwithstanding, as he is no longer running).

I would like to see the primary election winner get the nomination for presidential candidate, and the runner-up get the nomination for vice-president. That would not only help to reunite the majority of the party before heading into the general election but could reduce negative campaigning.

Here's a great website for information about the upcoming elections, including initiatives, ballot measures, and candidates, federal, state, and local. It also provides tons of info about past elections and the process in general.

https://www.santarosa.edu/library/Re....shtml#general

I'm not sure how I am going to vote yet. I have more work to do before I can decide. The most important thing is to try to make informed, educated, and intelligent choices, then GET OUT AND VOTE for something or someone.
-Jill

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by santarosie:

I would love to see a black man (or anyone who is not a member of the "good 'ol boy's fraternity") win the highest office in our country. I think we are ready, and I think he would work very hard to live up to the significance of this responsibility.

---

There was an interesting segment on Bill Maher's show Friday evening, in which stylists/clients of a primarily-black LA hair salon (named "Our Nappy Heads") were asked their opinions about the Democrat primary. Without exception they support Obama. I was struck by what one of them said, "If Obama is elected President, the issue of racism in the U.S. will be over".

That alone is a powerful argument to give him a vote. However, I still believe that all in the world, including him, would be best served if he acquired experience at the global level before becoming President. Otherwise, odds are too high that he'd be rendered ineffective or chewed up by the political machines of the world. There's too much at stake.

Obama is a bit young & lacking experience for the demands of that office. I think the effect the salon patron referred to would be accomplished if Obama was to become the Vice President, and then the Presidential candidate in '12 or '16.

If any of the candidates, Obama, Clinton, or Edwards becomes the Democrat candidate I will strongly support them.

I cast my absentee ballot yesterday, for John Edwards.

Quote:

---

GET OUT AND VOTE for something or someone.

---

Amen.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I'm going to vote for Kucinich...

---

Since he's dropped out, it's back to the drawing board!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tars:

...
However, I still believe that all in the world, including him, would be best served if he acquired experience at the global level before becoming President. Otherwise, odds are too high that he'd be rendered ineffective or chewed up by the political machines of the world. There's too much at stake.

Obama is a bit young & lacking experience for the demands of that office. I think the effect the salon patron referred to would be accomplished if Obama was to become the Vice President, and then the Presidential candidate in '12 or '16.

If any of the candidates, Obama, Clinton, or Edwards becomes the Democrat candidate I will strongly support them.

I cast my absentee ballot yesterday, for John Edwards.

---

I completely agree! I'd like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket! Hopefully Obama would be able to influence things some while being trained by the best! On one hand it would be a dream ticket, and on the other hand it would inspire a perfect storm of opposition from the Republicans and racists/sexists (is that redundant?). They'd have a fit!

Having said that, I just voted my absentee ballot for Obama!

:vote:

One factor that hasn't received very much comment thus far, is that dozens of GOP pols are deserting the ship ahead of the '08 electoral bloodletting. The public generally seems to at least try to keep the branches of gov't balanced. McCain, or whomever gets the GOP nod, will probably get a significant "sympathy" vote from independents and conservative Dems, if it looks like there may end up being the probability of a veto-proof Dem majority in either house or senate.

My meaningless prediction for the general election, plucked from the air, or someplace else: Clinton wins the general election 52% to 47% over McCain. That's my prediction, and I stand firmly by it....until at least Feb 5.

I've heard a lot of talk here regarding Obama being too young. I don't think that Obama is too young; I think he is too inexperienced. The U.S. has already had three presidents younger than Obama would be if he were to win and be sworn in on January 2009. Those men were:

Theodore Roosevelt: 42 y/o
John F. Kennedy: 43 y/o
William Jefferson Clinton: 46 y/o

So all of this business about Obama being too young is a bunch of hooey. And it is also important to remember that those three youngest of presidents were among the very best in U.S. history! All three are in the top ten.

The other great presidents were:
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
Abraham Lincoln
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman

There really isn't a tenth best president worth mentioning unless you want to include Washington, who in all truth was a rather bland executive. He is heralded as the father of our country for being one of the main revolutionaries, military leaders, and the first President of the U.S. Washington is also revered because he chose not to declare himself King of the United States and respected the higher ideals of electing the equivalent of a king. Washington could have established an American monarchy if he wanted and we would have one of his descendants on the throne in Washington D.C. to this very day, even if the royal office had been stripped of most of its powers like modern day European countries, such as our closest ally, the British, or the Scandinavians, Holland, etc.

Edward

Hey Waccovoters,

Probably anyone paying attention knows I'm registered Green and am a strong supporter of the Green Party of the United States. For those still thinking Nader had anything to do with Gore or Kerry losing, please consult this thread for my views and the counterviews of others, particularily SonomaMark.

That re-said, I was going to vote for Jared Ball for nomination as the GPUS candidate for '08. I decided on him over McKinney because he is coming from within the party, I like what I've heard from him on KPFA "Hard Knock Radio" and I have a few quibbles with her record. But he declared his support for Cynthia (I just found out while checking his campaign link while editing this post) so I guess I'll follow his lead.

It sucked when the Dems cut third parties out of their primaries a few years ago, but that's what they wanted so they don't get my participation in their primary. They haven't had my participation in their party since the late seventies, if then.

Obama seems cool, he's on a roll, but he's a Dem, albeit not funded by the DLC from all indications. So he has much to recommend him. I like Edwards focus on the problem of poverty. Gee, I wonder why he is pushed to the margin? And Kucinich, great positions but with oodles of anti-charisma. From a distance, his amplified voice sounds very much like a yapping terrier. I know, I heard it walking in to Harmony Fest back in '04. I swear he sounded just like one!!

Vote your conscience, not your fears.

You can't spoil what is already rotten.

Obviously election reform is needed to create a true democracy in this country. Anyone laying odds on how soon the two dominant parties will sign off on IRV, Ranked Choice and / or parliamentary representation in the legislature? I'm not holding my breath on any of those.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

I registered as Republican in the Fall so that I could vote for Ron Paul, so I will be voting for Ron Paul. He is far from perfect, and simply wrong on several issues, particularly immigration and environmental protection. My reason for supporting him is that the government has become too large and cumbersome for ordinary voters to really change it. A Ron Paul Presidency would give us a new start. If most corporations, the GOP, and the media want him stopped, then he is doing something right.

Now that he cannot win, voting for him in the primary is even more important because it will pave the way for future outsiders who will not only oppose U.S. Imperialism, but strike the right balance between freedom and protection of the poor and entities like the environment that can't vote or pay taxes. If Ron Paul ends up with 10% of popular support in the GOP, maybe the next outsider will get 25% in the Democratic primary. The more success outsiders have, the greater variety of choices we will have in the future. Even if Ron Paul does run as a third party candidate in November, I do not expect I will vote for him then unless it looks like the election will be really one sided. When it looked like the nominees would be Guiliani and Clinton, November would not have made much difference, but if it turns out to be Obama and any of the other Republicans, the choice between the top two will be more consequential.

If I were able to vote in the Democratic Primary, I would vote for Obama. What he lacks in experience he makes up in education, intelligence, and sincerity. He takes time to explain his positions, rather than try to simplify everything into inoffensive sound bites. He has been dragged into politics as usual in the past few weeks, but the campaign process is grueling and bound to bring the worst out in people sooner or later. He won't end U.S. military exploits around the world, but he has greater grassroots support and will at least bring incremental improvement.

Anyway, that's my Primary thought process.

~ Neshamah

>My reason for supporting (Ron Paul) is that the government has become too large and cumbersome for ordinary voters to really change it. A Ron Paul Presidency would give us a new start.

This chronic mantra of "reduce the size of government" appeals to a broad cross-section of the populace, but for very different reasons. Paul seems to be of the camp that suggests that Federal programs are de facto suspect: self-defeating, corrupt, wasteful, and prone to being coopted. We'd do much better if Sebastopol could have its own FDA, its own Social Security administration, and its own little Green-Party version of the Marine Corps & Air Force.

But in practice, what does "smaller government" actually mean? Get rid of Social Security and just encourage people to be more self-reliant? Get rid of food, safety, civil rights, labor & environmental regulations and go back to the halcyon days of the 1920's? Reduce subsidies to Exxon while simultaneously eliminating all restraints on Exxon?

Reagan was against big government and presided over a vast expanse of federal budget, while gutting any program his particular constituency didn't like. What would Paul do with FCC appointments? Appoint commissioners who did away with all regulations that inhibit monopoly? Bush has already done that to numerous agencies simply by reducing their capacity to function for the intended purpose.

I still don't get it.

Cheers—
Conrad

Nesh, sweety, there is something critically important about Ron Paul that you are deliberately ignoring:

RON PAUL IS AGAINST ABORTION !!!

The hell with Ron Paul. He's just another ultra right wing asshole, nothing more.

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Neshamah:

I registered as Republican in the Fall so that I could vote for Ron Paul, so I will be voting for Ron Paul. He is far from perfect, and simply wrong on several issues, particularly immigration and environmental protection. My reason for supporting him is that the government has become too large and cumbersome for ordinary voters to really change it. A Ron Paul Presidency would give us a new start. If most corporations, the GOP, and the media want him stopped, then he is doing something right.

Now that he cannot win, voting for him in the primary is even more important because it will pave the way for future outsiders who will not only oppose U.S. Imperialism, but strike the right balance between freedom and protection of the poor and entities like the environment that can't vote or pay taxes. If Ron Paul ends up with 10% of popular support in the GOP, maybe the next outsider will get 25% in the Democratic primary. The more success outsiders have, the greater variety of choices we will have in the future. Even if Ron Paul does run as a third party candidate in November, I do not expect I will vote for him then unless it looks like the election will be really one sided. When it looked like the nominees would be Guiliani and Clinton, November would not have made much difference, but if it turns out to be Obama and any of the other Republicans, the choice between the top two will be more consequential.

If I were able to vote in the Democratic Primary, I would vote for Obama. What he lacks in experience he makes up in education, intelligence, and sincerity. He takes time to explain his positions, rather than try to simplify everything into inoffensive sound bites. He has been dragged into politics as usual in the past few weeks, but the campaign process is grueling and bound to bring the worst out in people sooner or later. He won't end U.S. military exploits around the world, but he has greater grassroots support and will at least bring incremental improvement.

Anyway, that's my Primary thought process.

~ Neshamah

---

Obama understands better than any of us that the system needs to be changed. As he pointed out so eloquently in his SC victory speech (check it out at c-span.org if you haven't been lucky enough to have heard it yet), his is not a simply a personal candidacy in which he more than any other candidate can best assume leadership over a system, so flawed that it cannot be fixed from the top down. It is about a movement for FUNDAMENTAL change in the way that politics is done in this country. It is about building a true grassroots movement that can go toe-to-toe with the moneyed interests that have dominated policy-making and the political process for decades. And he is not just talking this, he is doing it. Hello, haven't we been aching for the people to rise up and take back their government from the corporate establishment? Well, that's what's happening. Obama has managed to galvanize the youth, independents, and people like myself, to roll up our sleeves and help raise the money and the votes on our own behalf, and that IS ACTUALLY happening. He is going toe-to-toe with the Clinton corporate money machine, and raising as much as they do from folks like me who send in $25-$100 from time to time. His campaign is showing that the people united cannot be defeated. This is far more historic than the fact that he is African-American!

His success so far has been because of grassroots efforts alone. You can be part of this incredible movement to take back our government and its institutions so that it can once again serve the public, not exclusively the corporate, interests. Tell your friends, co-workers, family, anyone that will listen, to VOTE FOR OBAMA in the primary. Every vote counts.

RE: Edwards-- I have only the greatest respect for this man, but, and this is a big BUT, even if he got to the White House by virtue of votes being cast and counted, I fear he will be like a Jimmy Carter. As president, without a mass movement behind him, he could not make the changes he KNEW (correctly) needed to be made. Obama is creating a huge new majority of folks from all walks of life, from all political spectrums, that are sick and tired of having their legitimate interests ignored by the corporate-interest serving politicians of BOTH parties. He says time and again that without a movement like what he is creating, he will be as powerless as the next guy/gal to change the system. His message, if you go to c-span and listen, is that the system is broken because of the domination of special interests over the political system. He is not mincing words. He is deadly serious about the task before him, and the difficulties to be faced.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

I keep hearing a lot of talk about change from folks here in Wacco and the media and the candidates. But if we want to see the kind of change that we desire then we have to reform the system, the political institutions, the electoral laws, and how government, political parties and voting are organized.

If you keep the same frame of mind you (everyone) have now, you will always be disappointed--guaranteed. None of the candidates can deliver the kind of change many Americans are clambering for because the obstacles are systemic. The system must be fundamentally changed, something that most of the wealthy and powerful do not want and will not allow to happen.

Edward

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by EngagedBuddhist:

It is about a movement for FUNDAMENTAL change in the way that politics is done in this country. It is about building a true grassroots movement that can go toe-to-toe with the moneyed interests that have dominated policy-making and the political process for decades.

---

I appreciate the sentiment, I thoroughly agree with it. If Obama's elected, I'll consider his presidency a success if he can merely start the healing. I fear he wouldn't be able to; hope I'm wrong.

For those who are able to see it here's an interesting OpEd about this in the 1/28 NY Times, called "Lessons Of 1992", by Paul Krugman, whose opinion I value highly. It will probably be in Tuesday's PD.

Excerpt:

"those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them."

Unfortunately, the "unpleasantness" will almost assuredly take the form of partisan gridlock inflicted wherever/whenever possible by a GOP minority. I fear that Obama may be a righteous lamb, strolling into a pit of vipers.

(Barry-I'd've put the quote in WaccoReader, but I thought it particularly germain to this discussion)

Conrad,

It is true that in getting rid of the government's excesses, Ron Paul will also get rid of some good programs. The programs we need will be brought back one way or another. No damage he could possibly do domestically compares to the damage we are inflicting worldwide in the name of making it a better place. At it is, Ron Paul is not going to win, but I hope by supporting him, we will make it easier for future outsiders to try to change the system. The next outsider to raise $19 million in a quarter might not be as far right on the economy and social issues.

~ Neshamah

Edward, exalted and omnipresent one, there is something critically important about Hillary Clinton that you are deliberately ignoring:

HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTED INVADING IRAQ AND WILL NOT RULE OUT THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AGAINST IRAN !!

I am not going to call her names, but try to look at the bigger picture.

Let's say the Supreme Court reverses Roe versus Wade, Kansas places draconian restrictions on abortion, and by 2012, every woman in Kansas is forced to go through with a pregnancy she did not want. Assuming all of their children are neglected, that harms 3 million people, maybe it kills a third of them. That abortion restrictions could cause that much harm is a lot less plausible than the following scenario: Imagine that Hillary Clinton becomes President and decides to exercise the option of a nuclear strike on Iran that kills half their population. That is 30 million dead and a generation afflicted with the effects of radiation fallout. Is keeping abortion legal in Kansas, Louisiana, and Texas so important that you'd rather we risk a nuclear war? Forced to choose between a few million unwanted births, and tens of millions dead, is not a pleasant choice. I respect that you consider my right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy more important than the entire population of Iran, but try to respect those who choose to prioritize the latter.

~ Neshamah

Neshamah, thank you for showing appreciation of my status ;-D

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Neshamah:

Edward, exalted and omnipresent one...

---

I'm voting for Obama. I think it's interesting (and I'm a little surprised) that there is so much talk on WACCO about the benefit of Hilary's experience. I don't feel that she has shown that she is progressive in what she has done (voting for Iraq and not taking a clear stance against ending it as the most obvious but not the only concern.) I don't trust that she will take the risk or have the motivation to make the real changes that we need. I would be interested to hear from folks what she has done that that has inspired confidence in her abilities, apart from being a part of the political system for a long time. Maybe I am missing something. It's cool that she's a woman, but she doesn't seem to be overflowing with feminine compassion that might actually try something new and help us get out of the multiple messes we are facing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jupiter13:

I would be interested to hear from folks what she has done that that has inspired confidence in her abilities, apart from being a part of the political system for a long time.

---

Let's put aside her huge intellect, and encyclopedic knowledge of virtually every major societal issue. I'm not primarily (pun intended) a Hillary supporter; I voted for someone else. But, since you asked, I believe that one of her main strengths is her decades of experience in the political arena, nationally and globally. Which of the candidates is perfect? Any of them will have the least perceived imperfection media-magnified, scrutinized, and blathered about until we're sick of hearing about it. That process really went up a magnitude in vile meanness when Bill was prez. I think Hillary handled the inconceivably thorough negativity with grace and aplomb.

Hillary aka part of "Billary" has been called the most politically active presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt. And like Eleanor, huge attempts were made by political enemies to smear her character and stymie any attempt she made to accomplish positive programs.

I admire her for taking on the huge and thankless project of trying to fix the broken health care system in the U.S., when absolutely no one else had the balls to do it. I detest the GOP for their spectacular smallness in doing whatever they could do to thwart and demonize her efforts. I admire her philosophy in "It Takes A Village", which despite slime-mongering attempts by her enemies again, raised the national conciousness about child rearing and education.

Whomever is the next president, they will incur the full negative focus of the GOP propaganda machine. It would be naive to underestimate its impact. Hopefully the Dems have learned that they must unite behind the next president, to minimize the negative impact of the hit machine. But even with that, if the next prez wants to get anything accomplished they can't wilt in that heat. Hillary has proven time and again that she has that stamina.

I do not begrudge Hillary's camp for their political tactics thus far, the Dem contender will need to do these things and more, or they'll fail as Kerry did in 2004. Politics is not noble, seldom is it pretty. It's a long way to November. I believe this will be as close an election as in 2004, maybe closer.

Last, people are currently slamming the Clintons for injecting "race" into the contest. They didn't inject it, the media pounced on them for making any even vaguely-possibly racial comment. Similarly she was attacked by black public figures, many of whom have their own racist issues. Obama's benefiting by having a black parent. How come there isn't outrage at the attacks on Hillary's femininity? How come media comments about her hairstyle, "failure" to wear dresses, "cackling laughter", etc. don't garner her the sympathy that racist comments get for Obama? I believe that at the bottom line Hillary is unfairly suffering because of white guilt.

I haven't voted for her yet, I would almost assuredly vote for her in the general election. It would be one of the proudest moments of my life to see a woman elected as Commander In Chief.

Hillary is a CFR shill. And corrupt as hell! There's a new documentary about her coming out soon and I saw it recently. You get to see her lie through her teeth over and over again. Here is the trailer for the film:
Hillary! Uncensored
https://video.google.com/videoplay?d...09937779036019

She's backed by the military industrial complex. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, backs her and held a fundraiser for her. If you support Hillary, you better be willing to give up more of your standard of living to the wars, and be willing to be drafted if you are aged 42 or under.

I registered Republican this time and will be voting for Peace, Prosperity and Liberty.

Obama? He says he's against the war but always votes for funding it. He wants to expand our wars to Pakistan now. The guy voted for the Patriot Act! And he's a media darling - that should give you a clue. His wife is connected to Big Pharma.

But I'm not worried he'll win. Many Americans won't vote black, or for someone named Hussein. I hear that Larry Flynt is going to expose what a fraud he is. This might be just the beginning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

If a war candidate wins, expect a devastated economy with more of this in our country:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmeHiFZUWtE

Obama did not vote for the Patriot Act, which was passed in 2001, before he was even in the Senate.

His voting record is available online. He's very publically anti-war, which is why he has gained support from other people who are anti-war, like the Kennedy family, who have publically endorsed him and compared him to JFK Jr. This is all over the news.

It sounds like you've heard a lot from the disinformation campaign that has been waged and that the Democratic Party is seriously trying to curb, stemming from one candidate in particular.

He won the nearly all-white state of Iowa, and before that, the 75% white state of Illinois, as Senator.

He will probably be endorsed by Gore. He's received endorsements in droves in the past few days.

I don't know if I can post links here without seeming spammy, but please check out his official site as well as googling simple issues like "Obama Voting Record" to see where he's stood.

The part about his middle name is so racist I can't even bring myself to properly address it. His father was from Kenya. It's a traditional name, like John. I happen to have a Muslim name because my parents were hippies, but I'm technically Jewish, raised Hindu. Bigotry is unacceptable on wacco, dude.

I've never "been" for any candidate before. Normally don't even vote. Voted Green a few times. Tend toward extreme liberal, some would say radical, others would just call it progressive. This candidate really deserves to be looked at, and not through some media spin lens that Sonoma County is too good to listen to. I have a lot more hope for us than that.

Give a real reason for non-support and that is respectable. Spout out flatly false allegations and that is not ok.

Sorry, I usually just lurk here, but this post is wrong, not for the disinformation, that's just plain annoying, mainly because it's racist.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by d-cat:

Obama? He says he's against the war but always votes for funding it. He wants to expand our wars to Pakistan now. The guy voted for the Patriot Act! And he's a media darling - that should give you a clue. His wife is connected to Big Pharma.

But I'm not worried he'll win. Many Americans won't vote black, or for someone named Hussein. I hear that Larry Flynt is going to expose what a fraud he is. This might be just the beginning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

If a war candidate wins, expect a devastated economy with more of this in our country:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmeHiFZUWtE

---

My vote comes from taking the time to educate myself online about the issues for about a week (had some downtime).

I will be voting 150% for Obama as I feel he is a man of extreme tolerance who can heal the deep wounds in this country by breaking down a lot of the hatred that people espouse. His conduct towards others who attack him is beautiful, and he reminds me more of a young Gandhi fighting down in Africa than JFK, who he gets compared with all the time. At any rate, I feel he's very sincere and there are only a few issues I have disagreement with him on, and that's going to happen no matter who you choose, as no one is born to be "your candidate." It's like dating, a complicated process where you look for a good fit.

The man absolutely inspires me.

I also like Edwards and wouldn't be disatisfied to see him in office, but feel that Obama is a much stronger candidate. I'm in good company with the profound endorsements he's gotten. I think Edwards would be an excellent V.P.

This feels like the New Civil Rights Movement with the energy. It's good to see so much motion after so much stagnation. It's really time for change.

I appreciate your fair assessment of Hilary. One doesn't need to be voting (like me) for Obama to fail to note and appreciate her incredible strengths. When I first heard her years ago during the first Clinton campaign, I said to my friends, "she should be the president." As a feminist, I looked forward to the time when her presidency might become possible, and expected to be an enthusiastic supporter. When Obama jumped into the race, frankly, I was angry that he wasn't waiting his turn, so to speak. But his words then that this country simply did not have the time for him to wait, rang with a clarity I knew to be true.

What it comes down to is this: If you think the current system of entrenched corporate domination of politics is monolithic and cannot ever be changed, then, Billary is probably the right combination to try to make some liberal changes around the edges. They certainly are the most skillful Democrats in that arena.

If, like me however, you have yearned for an awakened electorate that can come together, out of the diversity that our country represents, and coalesce around a candidate that they support with their small donations of money and great donations of time and energy, then you will join the movement to elect Obama. For as he says, over and over again, this is not about changing the face at the top, but about creating a true movement dedicated to taking back decision-making from the lobbyists and special interests that have dominated it. Without a social movement like what he is creating, that can raise the funds from the many, sufficient to go toe-to-toe against the hugely powerful few, the kind of change we dream of cannot ever become a reality. That he has vision, charisma, integrity, awesome intellect, and is actually building a big tent that includes not just us tired old progressives, but youth, minorities, independents, and an amazing number of Republican moderates who are disaffected by the neocon and fundamentalist extremes of their own party, and like us are sick of the way the corporations feed at the public trough with impunity under the current broken system, then you will join this first true historic mass movement for a renewed American political system.

I am thoroughly heartened by the Kennedy support of Obama, since Ted works with him in the Senate and knows his capabilities. That he believes that Obama will be ready to govern on day one, reinforces my own sense of his readiness, gleaned from reading his books, particulary Audacity of Hope.

If you as an activist grew up on the chant: "the people united, can never be defeated" then you will pitch in and help the Obama campaign because for the first time in my life, this is becoming a truism in conventional American politics. What are you waiting for to get on board?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tars:

Let's put aside her huge intellect, and encyclopedic knowledge of virtually every major societal issue. I'm not primarily (pun intended) a Hillary supporter; I voted for someone else. But, since you asked, I believe that one of her main strengths is her decades of experience in the political arena, nationally and globally. Which of the candidates is perfect? Any of them will have the least perceived imperfection media-magnified, scrutinized, and blathered about until we're sick of hearing about it. That process really went up a magnitude in vile meanness when Bill was prez. I think Hillary handled the inconceivably thorough negativity with grace and aplomb.

Hillary aka part of "Billary" has been called the most politically active presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt. And like Eleanor, huge attempts were made by political enemies to smear her character and stymie any attempt she made to accomplish positive programs.

I admire her for taking on the huge and thankless project of trying to fix the broken health care system in the U.S., when absolutely no one else had the balls to do it. I detest the GOP for their spectacular smallness in doing whatever they could do to thwart and demonize her efforts. I admire her philosophy in "It Takes A Village", which despite slime-mongering attempts by her enemies again, raised the national conciousness about child rearing and education.

Whomever is the next president, they will incur the full negative focus of the GOP propaganda machine. It would be naive to underestimate its impact. Hopefully the Dems have learned that they must unite behind the next president, to minimize the negative impact of the hit machine. But even with that, if the next prez wants to get anything accomplished they can't wilt in that heat. Hillary has proven time and again that she has that stamina.

I do not begrudge Hillary's camp for their political tactics thus far, the Dem contender will need to do these things and more, or they'll fail as Kerry did in 2004. Politics is not noble, seldom is it pretty. It's a long way to November. I believe this will be as close an election as in 2004, maybe closer.

Last, people are currently slamming the Clintons for injecting "race" into the contest. They didn't inject it, the media pounced on them for making any even vaguely-possibly racial comment. Similarly she was attacked by black public figures, many of whom have their own racist issues. Obama's benefiting by having a black parent. How come there isn't outrage at the attacks on Hillary's femininity? How come media comments about her hairstyle, "failure" to wear dresses, "cackling laughter", etc. don't garner her the sympathy that racist comments get for Obama? I believe that at the bottom line Hillary is unfairly suffering because of white guilt.

I haven't voted for her yet, I would almost assuredly vote for her in the general election. It would be one of the proudest moments of my life to see a woman elected as Commander In Chief.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mahakali overdrive:

Obama did not vote for the Patriot Act, which was passed in 2001, before he was even in the Senate.

His voting record is available online. He's very publically anti-war, which is why he has gained support from other people who are anti-war, like the Kennedy family, who have publically endorsed him and compared him to JFK Jr. This is all over the news.

It sounds like you've heard a lot from the disinformation campaign that has been waged and that the Democratic Party is seriously trying to curb, stemming from one candidate in particular.

He won the nearly all-white state of Iowa, and before that, the 75% white state of Illinois, as Senator.

He will probably be endorsed by Gore. He's received endorsements in droves in the past few days.

I don't know if I can post links here without seeming spammy, but please check out his official site as well as googling simple issues like "Obama Voting Record" to see where he's stood.

The part about his middle name is so racist I can't even bring myself to properly address it. His father was from Kenya. It's a traditional name, like John. I happen to have a Muslim name because my parents were hippies, but I'm technically Jewish, raised Hindu. Bigotry is unacceptable on wacco, dude.

I've never "been" for any candidate before. Normally don't even vote. Voted Green a few times. Tend toward extreme liberal, some would say radical, others would just call it progressive. This candidate really deserves to be looked at, and not through some media spin lens that Sonoma County is too good to listen to. I have a lot more hope for us than that.

Give a real reason for non-support and that is respectable. Spout out flatly false allegations and that is not ok.

Sorry, I usually just lurk here, but this post is wrong, not for the disinformation, that's just plain annoying, mainly because it's racist.

---

Yes, there is racism in America and it is not good. But many will not vote for a black man. Or one named Hussein.

Patriot Act was voted on twice. Here s the vote on the second time:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...n=2&vote=00029

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

'D-cat' has consistently been one of the most reactionary and racist voices in the Wacco list

---

Care to provide examples to back up your slanderous claims?

You cite a revision to the patriot act that attempts to limit it, which is why it received an almost universal vote. You did not even remotely cite the patriot act. You cited something trying to limit its power!

Here's a link to Obama's exact speech about the Patriot Act from the Senate Floor in 2006:

https://obama.senate.gov/speech/0602...r_statement_2/

It's going to be very exhausting if you try to provide false information here, because I could sit here all day and counter it, although there's no way I would bother with such counterproductive measures. I understand mistrust in Governmental figures and am highly skeptical myself, generally speaking. But I also realize that politicians can do things like afford people civil rights when they didn't previously have them, start wars, or end wars. Put your energy into trying to find the truth rather than the conspiracy. A lot of information is totally available to you. And if you don't care to vote, don't. As I stated, I often don't if I care for no particular party as I have highly progressive or even radical politics, ordinarily.

Americans do not appear to be too concerned about Mr. Obama's ethnicity. While he's trailing slightly in polls, at about 8% today, that doesn't exactly scream mass racism. Perhaps that is an issue you need to deal with in yourself. Times have changed significantly and younger people are a lot less aware of racism than those who grew up in the pre-Civil Rights era.

And thank you Barry.

I really suggest everyone do their own research. It's the most important election we've had in decades, and this is just the primary. This could finally end the war. That is something this candidate has committed to doing, and that is vital to so many of us.

I apologize for my post. I have deleted it.

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by d-cat:

Care to provide examples to back up your slanderous claims?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mahakali overdrive:

You cite a revision to the patriot act that attempts to limit it, which is why it received an almost universal vote. You did not even remotely cite the patriot act. You cited something trying to limit its power!

Here's a link to Obama's exact speech about the Patriot Act from the Senate Floor in 2006:

https://obama.senate.gov/speech/0602...r_statement_2/

It's going to be very exhausting if you try to provide false information here, because I could sit here all day and counter it, although there's no way I would bother with such counterproductive measures. I understand mistrust in Governmental figures and am highly skeptical myself, generally speaking. But I also realize that politicians can do things like afford people civil rights when they didn't previously have them, start wars, or end wars. Put your energy into trying to find the truth rather than the conspiracy. A lot of information is totally available to you. And if you don't care to vote, don't. As I stated, I often don't if I care for no particular party as I have highly progressive or even radical politics, ordinarily.

Americans do not appear to be too concerned about Mr. Obama's ethnicity. While he's trailing slightly in polls, at about 8% today, that doesn't exactly scream mass racism. Perhaps that is an issue you need to deal with in yourself. Times have changed significantly and younger people are a lot less aware of racism than those who grew up in the pre-Civil Rights era.

And thank you Barry.

I really suggest everyone do their own research. It's the most important election we've had in decades, and this is just the primary. This could finally end the war. That is something this candidate has committed to doing, and that is vital to so many of us.

---

here you go:
https://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

(section) Barack Obama on Homeland Security

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

He swore to uphold the Constitution, but doesn't. Only Ron Paul does.

Man, you're not making a lot of sense.

www.ontheissues.org

That will give anyone clear statements about all manner of issues from numerous presidential candidates.
Obama started his career as a Civil Rights and Constitution Attorney :idea:

I could NEVER stand by a candidate who did not support a woman's right to privacy, which is what the right to abortion, opposed by Ron Paul, entails.

Nor do I support some of Mr. Paul's votes on the war authorization:

https://www.vote-smart.org/issue_key...064&can_id=296

Or his other voting problems. Given that he's in Government, he might try actually voting now and again, particularly toward assisting children (scroll down):

https://www.ronpaulcolumbia.com/voting-record.asp

I won't even bother dealing with Ron Paul because I would simply not vote for him, much as he doesn't ever vote for us :) All for limited Government here as well, but not from those who are supposed to be voting for our rights, except when it ideologically suits them not to, such as with the women's right to choose issue. Why vote if you don't believe in voting? Especially as a Senator.

In terms of the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill, to which you are referring, the vote is almost unanimous because it sought to limit that act. You are the first I've heard to bring this concern up.

I can't find Senator Obama on this list, however:

https://www.vote-smart.org/issue_key...hp?cs_id=V3803

Your spouting hockum, Mister.

I can't stand politicians, or politicking either. I take the Thoreau stance on most of it and believe in keeping it local. But we need to END THIS WAR, plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

I apologize for my post. I have deleted it.

Edward

---

Glad to see that at least one of the two falsely accusing me of bigotry is gracious enough to apologize.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mahakali overdrive:

Man, you're not making a lot of sense.

www.ontheissues.org

That will give anyone clear statements about all manner of issues from numerous presidential candidates.
Obama started his career as a Civil Rights and Constitution Attorney :idea:

I could NEVER stand by a candidate who did not support a woman's right to privacy, which is what the right to abortion, opposed by Ron Paul, entails.

Nor do I support some of Mr. Paul's votes on the war authorization:

https://www.vote-smart.org/issue_key...064&can_id=296

Or his other voting problems. Given that he's in Government, he might try actually voting now and again, particularly toward assisting children (scroll down):

https://www.ronpaulcolumbia.com/voting-record.asp

I won't even bother dealing with Ron Paul because I would simply not vote for him, much as he doesn't ever vote for us :) All for limited Government here as well, but not from those who are supposed to be voting for our rights, except when it ideologically suits them not to, such as with the women's right to choose issue. Why vote if you don't believe in voting? Especially as a Senator.

In terms of the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill, to which you are referring, the vote is almost unanimous because it sought to limit that act. You are the first I've heard to bring this concern up.

I can't find Senator Obama on this list, however:

https://www.vote-smart.org/issue_key...hp?cs_id=V3803

Your spouting hockum, Mister.

I can't stand politicians, or politicking either. I take the Thoreau stance on most of it and believe in keeping it local. But we need to END THIS WAR, plain and simple.

---

I have looked deeply into Ron Paul and I have switched to Republican in order to vote for him in the primary. It seems like you don't have a good understanding of Dr. Paul. And he's not a senator by the way.

You say that Ron Paul voted on what you call "war authorization", but it was actually an Authorization for Use of Military Force to go after those responsible for the 911 attacks:
H J Res 64: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Clearly, this authorization was abused. Here is an almost prophetic speech to Congress by Ron Paul from Sept. 2002:
Arguments Against a War in Iraq
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=680

You say you're for "Keeping it local". That's how I feel too, and so does Ron Paul. He's for doing away with the often unconstitutional federal stranglehold on issues such as marijuana and abortion, and bringing the decision back to the state and local level.
You might see the abortion issue as a selfish "me" issue, but many Americans believe that the unborn should have rights, especially in the third trimester. Roe v Wade allows late term and partial birth abortion, and many people, including myself, find this inhumane. BTW, "Roe" (Norma McCorvey) has recently endorsed Ron Paul.

For the first time ever, I do not know how I will vote. Obama is clearly the feel-good candidate--the endorsement by Caroline Kennedy was a visceral thrill--but he worries me. I can't imagine the Republican machine not using his own words, from his autobiography, to smear him in the national campaign. He admitted not to trying cocaine but to getting into it for a period and I think this makes him vulnerable, especially given how quickly he becomes defensive when challenged. I think he is the Republican dream candidate.

And as far as corporate support goes, check out www.opensecrets.org, where you will find an accounting of PAC contributions by industry and candidate. Obama is second only to Clinton in the amount received from the pharmaceutical industry, from HMOs, from commercial banks and from hospitals and nursing homes. All other candidates, including Republican candidates, trail behind. Campaigns require money and as long as this is the system, I won't fault a candidate for taking it. But it is not accurate to paint him as the grassroots candidate, either.

I also believe he is way too inexperienced--not too young--for the job at this point. Sure, he would surround himself with experienced people and an Obama presidency would probably be okay, maybe even good. But I doubt he will get that far in 2008.

I think Edwards is addressing many of the crucial issues in the right way but it seems unlikely that he has a chance.

And so: Hillary. I do not dislike her. I admire her intellect and her ability to work hard and effectively. I think she would be a good and possibly great president. But with sexism still as rampant in this country as racism, I think a lot of people would claim they were voting for her and do something different--i.e., vote for McCain--in the voting booth. Plus, she is held to a different standard than other candidates and that is not going to play well in the fall.

My dream ticket would be Gore/Obama, but that is not going to happen.

What a mess. I'm very very worried it's going to be McCain in November and that is a very bad thing.

Hillary, Huckabee, Obama, and Paul confirmed for CROSS-PARTY debate. TODAY AT 3 PM

Myspace / MTV "Closing Arguments" Debate - Saturday 2/2/08 @ 3PM PST
https://www.myspace.com/election2008

The event will air on MTV (as well as MTV2 and MTV Tr3s, with highlights on mtvU), stream online at ChooseOrLose.com and MySpace.com, stream on mobile devices via MTV Mobile, broadcast live on XM Satellite Radio, MTV and AP radio, and be distributed live and on-demand through the Associated Press Online Video Network, which has more than 1,800 media sites, including nearly 600 media outlets in Super Tuesday states.

There were a few posts that got back into a discussion about Ron Paul. They have been moved to the Ron Paul thread.

This thread is for people to post about how they are going to vote and/or their process about that.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:

...
H J Res 64: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
...

---

Just had to comment here.

There has never been so much as a hearing to determine who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The "9/11 cOmission" started with a verdict and then made a lot of statements assuming it was true.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't know who was responsible. Perhaps Osama is still on the CIA payroll and claimed responsibility because that's what he was paid to do.

-Jeff

I could write a thousand words but two will do - Barack Obama.

Kathleen Shaffer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by d-cat:

Hillary, Huckabee, Obama, and Paul confirmed for CROSS-PARTY debate. TODAY AT 3 PM

Myspace / MTV "Closing Arguments" Debate - Saturday 2/2/08 @ 3PM PST
https://www.myspace.com/election2008

The event will air on MTV (as well as MTV2 and MTV Tr3s, with highlights on mtvU), stream online at ChooseOrLose.com and MySpace.com, stream on mobile devices via MTV Mobile, broadcast live on XM Satellite Radio, MTV and AP radio, and be distributed live and on-demand through the Associated Press Online Video Network, which has more than 1,800 media sites, including nearly 600 media outlets in Super Tuesday states.

---

https://www.mtv.com/content/thinkmtv..._281x211v2.jpg

If you missed the above mentioned debate when it aired, it can be viewed here:
https://www.mtv.com/thinkmtv/chooseorlose/index.jhtml

I am not registered to vote in California, and I am an Independent voter. I plan to vote for Mike Gravel for president. I heard him speak at the very beginning of all these debates between the candidates and I had a good feeling about him. Plus, I liked what he had to say about the people being able to govern themselves. He's a little extreme on some issues, and I know he is a Nader-like candidate. But, its better to vote with our hearts and let'em know what we want. Briefly, here is how he stands on some of the more important issues:

The National Initiative for Democracy Mike fully supports the National Initiative for Democracy. The NI4D is a way to bring legislative power back to the people. In many states, citizens can put measures on the ballot and Mike believes as citizens of the United States we should all have that power.

The War in Iraq
Senator Gravel's position on Iraq remains clear and consistent: to commence an immediate and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops that will have them home within 120 days.

Iran and Syria Senator Gravel opposes a military confrontation with Iran and Syria and advocates a diplomatic solution to the current situation

Global Warming/Climate Change Senator Gravel believes that global climate change is a matter of national security and survivability of the planet. As President, he will act swiftly to reduce America's carbon footprint in the world by initiating legislation to tax carbon at the source and cap carbon emissions. He is also committed to leading the fight against global deforestation, which today is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases.

Progressive Taxes - A fair Tax Senator Gravel's Progressive Fair Tax proposal calls for eliminating the IRS and the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax on new products and services. To compensate for the tax on necessities, such as food, lodging, transportation and clothing, there would be a "rebate" to reimburse taxpayers.

Healthcare Senator Gravel advocates a universal healthcare system that provides equal medical services to all citizens, paid for by a retail sales tax (a portion of the Progressive Fair tax). Citizens would pay nothing for health benefits

Reproductive Rights Senator Mike Gravel supports a woman's right to decide if and when to have children. He also supports a woman's right to make the difficult decision about abortion without interference by government authorities.

Immigration Senator Gravel favors protecting our borders and monitoring the flow of immigrants into our country. He also favors a guest worker program and setting up naturalization procedures that would fairly bring immigrants into legal status. America must address the root cause of illegal immigration. Any discussion of immigration must include NAFTA and the concept of "free trade." The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been a disaster for the working class of both the U.S. and Mexico and a boon to the international corporate interests.

LGBT Rights Senator Gravel supports same-sex marriage and opposes the Defense of Marriage Act. He supports expanding hate-crime legislation and opposes laws that allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or one's gender identity or expression. Senator Gravel strongly opposes the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, as it restricts the rights of gay Americans.

Social Security Senator Gravel wants to put real money, rather than borrowed money, in the Social Security Trust Fund. He advocates investing it properly and identifying the interests of individual beneficiaries so they can know what their retirement fund is and leave surplus funds to heirs.

Education Access to public education is a bedrock American value. Why is it then that the United States ranks 49th in literacy and that an estimated 30% of our students don't graduate from high school? Investing in education provides a pathway to a thriving national economy, to individual and family economic opportunity, and to the reduction of poverty. A successful education system requires the commitment of families, the community, and government. It's time to re-order our national budget priorities in order to improve the American education system.

The War on Drugs The War on Drugs has been a failure. It is time to end prohibition and start treating addiction as a public health problem.

Net Neutrality Net Neutrality aims to keep the Internet free from large companies, which are trying to limit the number of web sites their customers can view and the speed at which they can view them. Senator Gravel guarantees a free and open Internet with unlimited access to all sites. He will do this by supporting legislation and regulation that keeps you in control of your Internet usage and promotes free speech.

Human Rights Senator Gravel is adamantly opposed to torture, indefinite detention, and the deprivation of lawyers/speedy trials. He opposes the Military Commissions Act, flagrant ignorance of the Geneva convention, and Guantanamo.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

>My reason for supporting (Ron Paul) is that the government has become too large and cumbersome for ordinary voters to really change it. A Ron Paul Presidency would give us a new start.

This chronic mantra of "reduce the size of government" appeals to a broad cross-section of the populace, but for very different reasons. Paul seems to be of the camp that suggests that Federal programs are de facto suspect: self-defeating, corrupt, wasteful, and prone to being coopted. We'd do much better if Sebastopol could have its own FDA, its own Social Security administration, and its own little Green-Party version of the Marine Corps & Air Force.

But in practice, what does "smaller government" actually mean? Get rid of Social Security and just encourage people to be more self-reliant? Get rid of food, safety, civil rights, labor & environmental regulations and go back to the halcyon days of the 1920's? Reduce subsidies to Exxon while simultaneously eliminating all restraints on Exxon?

Reagan was against big government and presided over a vast expanse of federal budget, while gutting any program his particular constituency didn't like. What would Paul do with FCC appointments? Appoint commissioners who did away with all regulations that inhibit monopoly? Bush has already done that to numerous agencies simply by reducing their capacity to function for the intended purpose.

I still don't get it.

Cheers—
Conrad

---

Hi again IndyEye,

I replied to your post but it was removed and is now in the Ron Paul thread. Craziest moderation I have ever seen! No wonder hardly anyone comes on here!

I'd like to leave you with a final post.

After much research, I'm convinced that the two party system is just a one party system puppet show. They are controlled by one elite group who work under the names of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, The Bilderberg Group, Club of Rome, Committee of 300, The Roundtable, and Skull & Bones. Read all the Time and Newsweek you want (which they control). You will have no idea what is really going on in this country and in the world until you have a deeper understanding of this global elite and their centuries old plan to rule the world. They are now using their United Nations to usher in a one world government, and to reduce world population by 80% through war, disease, and famine. Don't laugh. Do some research.

Three generations of the Bush family were members of Skull & Bones, Prescott who funded the Nazis and tried to overthrow the U.S. government, George H.W. Bush (also a member of the CFR), and "W". John Kerry is Skull & Bones (and CFR), and his wife Teresa Heinz was also married to another Skull & Bones prior to Kerry. Heinz's grandfather was in collusion with Prescott Bush in the U.S. govt overthrow attempt. Bill Clinton is a member of the CFR, The Bilderberg Group, and The Trilateral Commission! Hillary is a member of the CFR. All the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) are members of the CFR. I haven't been able to substantiate whether Barak Obama is a CFR member or not, but his recently chosen economics adviser Austan Goolsbee is Skull & Bones, and his foreign policy adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski together with David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission. Here is a quote from Brzezinski:

"This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept."


https://i215.photobucket.com/albums/...idestones2.jpg

https://i215.photobucket.com/albums/...estoneseye.jpg

https://i215.photobucket.com/albums/...uidetablet.jpg

Goodluck to you all. WaccoTalk is not for me. Moderator - please do whatever is necessary so that I don't receive anymore emails from here. Thanks.

big·ot·ry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.