Couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks.

So true. The Clinton campaign has shown few shining moments of brilliance, and second, because it’s obvious to anyone keeping up with all the dirty tricks, Team Clinton hasn’t trusted the intelligence of the American voters, who she thought (mistakenly) she could fool with misleading statements and an inflated c.v.

In large part the Clinton vision is the tired old Third Way, which represents the core Clinton philosophy that has allowed the party to tilt right while capitulating to the Neocons. See: h t t p : / / e n . w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i / T h ir d _ W a y _ % 2 8 ce n t r i s m %29 .
(close spaces for listings)
The Third Way allowed Bill to sperhead Operation Desert Fox – the bombing of Iraq in ‘98 in response to the PNAC – (see: h t t p : / / w w w . n e w a m e r i c a n c e n t u r y . o r g / i r a q c l i n t o n l e t t e r . h t m ), push NAFTA, gut welfare and affirmative action, and repeal Glass-Steagall (see: h t t p : / / e n . w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i / G r a m m – l e a c h – b l i l e y ) that, in part has produced the subprime meltdown. It also served as a rationale for deregulating media forces, allowing them to own radio, TV and print outlets, such as Murdoch’s Fox enterprise.

Additionally, voters in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania especially, should realize that many of the consequences of globalization, such as the loss of American manufacturing, frozen or lower wages, pools of cheap labor, the peso bust in Mexico that heightened illegal immigration, are the direct result of Clinton policies. Big Business and Wall Street, including firms like Goldman Sachs and top law firms, have been avid supporters of the Clintons.

Why? Because Mrs. Clinton promises to hike their taxes? Because she’s going to bolster the middle class? Because she’s going to stimulate new job growth? No. Because she will protect their interests if elected? Yes.

The irony is that she admonishes Obama to get real at the same time promising the sun and the moon, knowing she could never deliver on her promises. If no other reason than – like all major policy initiatives – they will go through the House, be rewritten, renegotiated – and end up considerably different in the end. That, she fails to mention.

Realize, Presidents are not first and foremost legislators, despite her best efforts to present herslf as one. Did you ever wonder, where were all these marvelous policy plans during her first seven years as Senator? Why did she have her policy writers produce them all of a sudden? To be President. Not because she’s serious about delivering them. She knows she can’t. But she’s hoping that you don’t.

Don’t be fooled. Congress and Senate are now actively discussing minimizing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Why? For one reason, because the war Mrs. Clinton voted on in ‘02 is breaking the treasury. How will there be money for all her impossible dreams? There won’t be. She’s been a mediocre Senator, an insubstantial politician and an inauthentic character.

I don’t trust either of them .. I will never vote republican and probably never again democrat .. they dont speak for me anymore ..they lie, cheat, S*B’s oh right thats a politician

(Merkwurdigliebe)

DD- good points; Obama has been getting too much of a free ride around these parts…

but, I must disagree with Billy Boy’s term in the 90s being “peaceful”…it was peaceful in the sense that we buried our heads in the sand and pretended everything was a-ok…an era that produced the Balkan wars, the Rwandan Genocide, the Second Congo War, the entire Somalian fiasco, the first WTC bombing, the bombings of the emabssies in Kenya and Tanzania can hardly be called peaceful, and are the harsh legacies of Clinton’s weak foreign policy…the only bright spot of which was his “mediation” of the North Ireland conflict, which the hard work was almost entirely done by the Irish

credit must be given where credit is due however– clinton inherited a good economy from Reagan and Bush I, and turned it into the most fantastic outpouring of economic output this country had ever seen

but to say the 90’s were this mythical time of peace and prosperity is a bit of breathless hyperbole…peace and prosperity were only a facade

It’s ALL a facade.

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
– Frank Zappa

(Coach)

Merk: “clinton inherited a good economy from Reagan and Bush I…” Wrong. Check those numbers again, and see for yourself where the economy was when Clinton was elected.

Merk, I know we seem to disagree on most everything, but you sure do put the hammer down on everything Clinton without even raising the hammer on Bush II. Peace and prosperity during the Clinton years may be a facade to you, but the numbers prove it to be real.
We all know you’re a bomb-first, ask questions later kind of guy Merk. But, I take offense to your inference that Clinton and the Dems are ’soft’ on national security because they tend to cut military spending. It seems to me, that bombing a country is taking the easy way out. Talking to, or AT, enemies is the tough way to go.

Anyhoo, I hope Tuesday is the last we’ll see of HRC in this Primary race. Sorry DD, but even if the media is giving Obama an easy road, it doesn’t justify the polarizing tone of HRC. She wants to fight and divide, he wants to unite the democratic party and conquer the fascist republicans.

Obama 08, 12

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Coach– I’m not a bomb first, ask questions later guy, no more you’re a lay down and surrender first dude…prudence, logic, and national interest should dictate any use of force. The questions that should be asked is, “Is this in our strategic and national interest?”

as for Bush II, if you notice, the slant on my post was the 90s, before W was president…if you want to turn it into a list of grievances against him, I’ll happily oblige…my critiques are not mutually exclusive to either party…

but since the remains about clinton, ALL he did was bomb countries– the aspirin factory in Somalia, the Chinese Embassy in Kosovo, the empty desert in Afghanistan…

oh, you must have been talking about his “talking” with the North Koreans…the ones where they told him one thing, and then built nuclear weapons anyway. No, no, you must have meant the Dayton Accords, where the Serbs declared non-agression, but then stated butchering the Kosovars. Or maybe you mean when he was “talking” with Sudan, who had Osama Bin Laden, and he refused. Perhaps the talks he mediated between Ehud Barak and Arafat, the ones that ended in the Second Intifada

you have to be talking about Northern Ireland, but even then, the Irish had already begun to come to an agreement several years prior, and were just waiting for the last of the paramilitaries affliated with the IRA to disarm

again, dont mistake this as a total critique of Clinton’s foriegn policy, but all that I have mentioned forms the bulk of his foreign policy, “talking” included

Again, Clinton’s economic success must be marked, but so must his failures

(DD)

Good discourse. Finally, something besides polling numbers.

Merk, You sound as if you have a pretty good, and fair, dossier on Billy Boy. I certainly did not mean to imply that the world was at peace during his reign. To my way of thinking, the world has NEVER been at peace. Certainly not in the last 100 years. Somewhere in the globe, hostilities are winding up, raging, or winding down. It’s sure been that way all my life.

My point was that THIS country wasn’t bombing/invading some small country (another thing I’ve seen a lot of in my life), sans the ones you mentioned which were, I’m sure you’ll agree, token actions.

And you take umbrage to Billy Boy’s ‘failures’ geopolitically. That’s strange. Just which Prez since FDR would you point to as having any ‘success’ in that realm? It’s my belief it’s not possible for this country to ‘make the world better.’ All we can do is be a shining example and help those that want it to achieve the same. You can’t, for example, ‘impose’ democracy in the Middle East. You can’t, for example, get the various indigenous peoples throughout the world to forget ‘wrongs’ done them by their neighbors over the years. Hail, we can’t; how can we expect to mediate others? (Rhetorical question)

I think we’ll all agree that the world was a better place ten years ago. Billy Boy can’t take all the credit for that, but he should at LEAST get high marks for NOT fugging up, something the current Idiots In Charge are guilty of.

From the Radical Left website

Media Infatuation with Obama
The media response to Obama’s presidential run is eerily similar to their response to the invasion of Iraq. With one voice, the media hailed US aggression as justified. A year later, doubts started to be expressed.

The same will happen with Obama. So many liberal pundits will look foolish a year from now. They have fallen for Bo-Bo Obama, hook, line, and sinker. They adore/worship him in the same way conservatives have worshiped Bush all these years.

Regarding the Media coverage of this primary season it now seems clear that there is a new rule that objectivity and appearances thereof are out the window. Certainly at NBC this is true.

From the far right commentators like Joe Scarborough to the liberal newscaster Keith Olbermann and Establishment columnists like Eugene Robinson and Margaret Carlson any pretense of not openly rooting against the Clintons has now been discarded.

NBC’s performance last night was unlike any other I have seen outside of Fox News. Olbermann, who likes to trash Fox, properly in my view, should pause for a moment and consider how much his broadcast last night resembled Fox.

But Barack Obama has an opportunity here to make these new rules, as they pertain to him, lasting. And so does the progressive blogosphere.

I have long stated that Obama is a Media Darling, and indeed it is one of the main reasons I tepidly support him for the nomination.

Here are some of the rules that Obama and progressives should look to enforce through to the General Election:

1. Rezko is a non-issue and bringing it up is a slimy personal attack on Obama. This one has the virtue of being true. Let’s get that enforceable against John McCain and the other Republicans.

2. Discussions of experience and youth are, at the least, vaguely racist, and a personal attack. When a candidate touts experience or points to Obama’s lack of it, they are expressly arguing for a return to the past as opposed to looking to the future.

It means they are opposed to change. Indeed, it expressly means for Republicans that they want to continue the policies of the Bush Administration. For Republicans, this also has the virtue of largely being true.

The GOP field is indeed basically arguing for a continuation of Bush policies in most areas – tax cuts permanent, continuation of the Iraq Debacle, less government regulation, etc.

3. What Obama Meant. Any review of Obama statements or past votes is subject to an explanation by Obama of what he REALLY meant.

Any criticism of Obama’s statements which do not take into account Obama’s clarifications and explanations of what he REALLY meant are unfair personal attacks and the attacker is a “liar” who will say and do anything to get elected.

4. Obama’s attacks are always fair and merited. Any suggestion otherwise is, at the least, vaguely racist.

Can we get these rules enforced in the Media in a General Election? Let’s hope so if Obama is the nominee.

As for those of us who have been trying to push Obama to be more of an explicit partisan Dem well we can give that up now. He does not even have to give that concern a second thought.

Obama can not be criticized period now. We must operate on faith now. I am putting to an end my own critiques of his political style as I have ended my push to have Congress end the Iraq Debacle. I know when I have been licked.

–

“The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the
oppressed.” –Steve Biko

(Coach)

Merkentileexchange,

My comment about you being a ‘bomb-first’ guy was meant to be in jest, which I guess I should keep an eye on. Sorry if it was out of line.

However, in reading your citings of military intervention during the Clinton years, how is it the Dems are labeled ’soft’ if they bomb so often? Are they labeled soft because the Dems are looking for coalitions, i.e.: nato or the un?
Nevertheless, I’d take Clinton’s 8 years over this adm’s 8 years everyday of the week, year, millenium, every single time. I never will be proud of the decision to spread propoganda about a country…attack, invade and occupy said country….all in the name of keeping the oil flowing through western hands. I’m sick and tired of the spread of fear propoganda related to ‘terrorism’ that I could puke. Terrorism IS and WIlL BE around forever. It just takes good, old fashioned police work.

Obama 08

Blam. Gotcha! Blam. Blam. Gotcha! Blam. Blam. Gotcha!Blam. Gotcha! Blam. Blam. Gotcha! Blam. Blam. Gotcha!Blam. Gotcha! Blam. Blam. Gotcha! Blam. Blam. Gotcha!
-The Democratic Party eats itself

That Zappa quote just about sums up our fading democracy. Right on!

Bird. James Bird.

You sound like a PSA for the NRA.

(DD)
Flaming Father,

It took me the LONGEST to figure out what you were saying. So, we’ve established that I’m slow but NOT, yippee, irrelevant. Yet. I suppose there was a time when I would have short-hopped your post and smiled knowingly. those days are gone. Keep ‘em coming and be patient.

Again Americans are missing the point. Obama is just ripping off Clinton with the health care issue. And the “She voted for the war” thing is really old. Can’t he come up with anything better? Everyone voted for the war because we were all handed the “Patriotic” bill of goods from – lest we forget – Colin Powell?? Another Messiah? Obama wasn’t even around then, so who knows how he would have voted. Wake up people, push yourselves away from the Kool-aid!

“As Wall Street goes, so goes the nation. And here’s a look at the closing numbers – racism’s up, human rights are down, peace is shaky, war items are hot – the House claims all ties. Jobs are down, money is scarce – and common sense is at an all-time low on heavy trading. Movies were looking better than ever and now no one is looking because, we’re starring in a “B” movie. And we would rather had John Wayne…we would rather had John Wayne.”

Gil Scott, B Movie

Bush and Clinton’s since…what…1984? Capital before people since capital makes people happy. Money makes you. Be honest. Rapper throw bills in ya face- has he no class? He could have spent it on stocks, property, $20 cheese, old wine, private physicians, private school & a Prius. We make the rules we define high-brow! Wait, who’s going to preside as the CEO of America? Hillary, Barack or John ? Come ye savior and lift thy people from the perils of George W’s tenure. Them hicks are only good in the Westerns and since we got riled up with Patriotism (i.e. let the flag wave on my Camry) following the collapse of the twins he made us realize that them Middle Easterners are really as bad as they were in Vantage Point. Then we realized, hey, this country had a relationship with them the whole time, a working/business one. Hey you mean people might be interested in going to war for reasons other than spreading democracy. Or maybe democracy is giving people the choice to eat McDonald’s in Wallmart or at the Chevron Gas Station. Do liberals believe in what is not seen? You know, Hillary had policy; Barack just had hope. Bill say, Barack kind of like Jessie- he didn’t mean nothing by it…just saying, you know, he’s…good with words…like all the negro preachers and singers. By the way what is that thing called soul? Is it quantifiable?

(DD)

Doc D,

As a matter of fact, Soul IS quantifiable AND measurable. It’s a little known fact that Soul in a person can be, in fact, measured in roentgens on a Geiger counter. It’s called the Hughes Effect.

This phenomenon was discovered by accident in the late 1950s by a team of Nuclear Scientists from NYCC. The team had been commissioned by Howard Hughes to find an apartment in Manhattan that was certifiably germ free. Using all the technology available at the time, a Geiger counter was among the devices they employed.

After a hard day of testing, the team stopped by a night club for a shooter before going home. Inadvertently, one of the team members had left the Geiger counter on and as they were relaxing, enjoying their drinks, the device began to click. Stunned, the team members took the counter around and were surprised to discover that many in the night club appeared to be radioactive. They further discovered that a quartet of black musicians playing jazz were far and away more radioactive than any in the room.

The team chalked the occurrence up to equipment malfunction and forgot about it, although they did mention the event in their report, stating that the musicians seemed to be ‘hot’. Hughes had a greater trust in technology and took the report to mean that Manhattan was an unsafe place to live and scuttled his plans for an apartment there, choosing, instead, Las Vegas, Nevada.

All would have come to naught had not one of Hughes’ ‘lady friends’ made a passing comment about a current performer in Vegas, James Brown, declaring he was ‘hot.’ Struck by the similarity of the references, Hughes commissioned yet another team of Nuclear Scientist, these from LACC, to follow Brown around and make some tests. Sure enough, James Brown WAS hot, as were many in the audience. Oddly, none of the bartenders or waitresses recorded any trace of radioactivity. But the cat was out of the bag.

Later, Tom Jones would be discovered to be radioactive as would be Merle Haggard. Barry Manilow and Celine Dion would be discovered to be radioactive free. And it fell to a graduate student at the College of Sequoias to make the connection while working on his doctorate thesis.

The student, who chose anonymity because of family ties, thus the name Hughes Effect, was working on a Pell Grant for the Department of Defense attempting to irradiate Fireflies for release in Communist countries when he stumbled upon the Hughes reports. The DOD wasn’t interested in the information, but a copy of thesis fell into the hands of William Felt, who, acting as Deep Throat, leaked the information to Bob Woodward as part of the ongoing Watergate investigation.

The rest, as they say, was history.

(Jed Clampett)

If the brain is the control mechanism for the body, is mind the control mechanism for soul?

If the brain overpowers the mind, are we separated from soul?

If your brain does not allow you to even consider a soul, are you out of your mind?

If the soul is bathed in the darkness of the dark side, does it manifest in the bady as a criminal entity? gangbanger perhaps? serial murderer? policeman?

If the mind overpowers the brain, does the destruction of the ego make you a saint? buddha? ghandi?

If you believe in nothing, does anything believe in you?

Ever wonder what a hit counter on these pages would show?