Presidential Primary - How are you going to vote?

[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, 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 , for what it's worth. How about you? How are you going to navigate this critical election?

[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

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...

[alanora]

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........

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

[Tars]

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".

[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.

[Barry]

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

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.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

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.

[Valley Oak]

Why is Obama risky?

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

Thanks,

Edward

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.

[OrchardDweller]

BREAKING NEWS!

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

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

[Frederick M. Dolan]

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.

[Lenny]

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.

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

[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.

[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

[Frederick M. Dolan]

A compelling argument.

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.

[Barry]

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!

[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

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

This is going to be one ugly election!

[santarosie]

MY 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

[Tars]

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.

GET OUT AND VOTE for something or someone.

Amen.

[Barry]

I'm going to vote for Kucinich...

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

...
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!

[Tars]

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.

[Valley Oak]

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

["Mad" Miles]

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

[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

[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

[Valley Oak]

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

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

[EngagedBuddhist]

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.

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

[Tars]

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)

[Neshamah]

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

[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

[Valley Oak]

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

Edward

Edward, exalted and omnipresent one...