he's been saying this for quite sometime. It's part of his stump speech.

Obama is spot on. We all talk about how bad the patriot act was but the clinton anti-terrorism bill of 1996 was almost as bad and, in turn, allowed the patriot act to be as far-reaching as it is.
Of course, compared side-by-side, anyone with a brain would take Clinton over GW but with the '08 race in mind, hillary shouldn't get to play up her 'role' as first lady, particularly as her guarantee to radically change health-care fizzled out when she started taking bribes, ahem, sorry, support from insurance and drug companies.
Happy New Year to all.

From a rhetorical point of view, I think this a good line but its appeal is too narrow. It lacks substance. What does change mean? What does it look like? How would he work with Republicans to make generational change? President Clinton came into office with similar rhetoric and was nearly eaten alive by the congress and the press. Vince Foster was driven to suicide 7 months into the Clinton presidency. This wasn't the Clintons’ fault--except a naivety in underestimating the ferocity of their opposition. I sense that Obama supporters think that he can change the tone in Washington. I think this is naive. I think Hillary is best prepared to lead, fight, cajole, and schmooze her way to success in the presidency.

"Lacking substance" is a rather rich charge from an evidently brainless sycophant whose slavish devotion to The Strong and Experienced Leader would make Jeff Gannon blush.

Thanks anon, I didn't see any appearances, but I will keep checking. I'm sure it will change after iowa.

Hi demac, well at least it isn't maintain the status quo and relive the 90's. That's old and boring. Why not try something different?

More of the same vague substance-less BS we've already heard from Obama.

Contrast that with Edwards talking about his real plans for ending poverty. That's real change.

One struggles to find many negatives about Barack Obama. The way he used Hillary's biggest argument (experience) in his favor was brilliant.

George,
Obama’s lack of experience is hardly in his favor, quite the opposite. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson certainly doesn’t give much for Obama’s lack of credibility and experience.

Says Wilson: “Barack Obama attended elementary school in Indonesia before the age of 10, his chief period of time abroad. I, too, spent years overseas in my formative school years. While the experience certainly whetted my appetite for international relations, it did not provide me either with “intuition” or expertise in the conduct of my nation’s foreign policy. My understanding of international affairs came from twenty-three years of professional diplomacy, much of it spent overseas dealing at senior levels on crises such as serving as the acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq stationed in Baghdad during the first Gulf War.”

“Now, Senator Obama echoes and reflects the same attitude of contempt for "on the ground experience." Acting on his superior "intuition" he has proposed unilateral bombing of Pakistan and unstructured summits without preconditions with adversaries such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il. As we have learned, the march of folly is paved with good but naïve intentions.

A number of us, like then Illinois state senator Obama, opposed the second Gulf War. My own opposition from the beginning has been well documented. I fought the fight in the arena itself, Washington DC, against a ruthless administration and its supporters while the senator's opposition came from a far distance and carried no risk, given that he represented in Springfield, Illinois the district encompassing the University of Chicago. As an obscure but safe provincial political figure, he never was granted access to the distorted intelligence that was used to drive the Congress and the media. When I looked to the left or to the right for support, I never saw the state senator. In fact, I never heard of Barack Obama until he announced his intention to run for the Senate in the 2006 election.”

The Senator from Illinois a k a’Stay-at-home’ Barack Obama recently came under heavy fire from the London Times as well because of his troubling lack of credibility on foreign policy.

Yo Obama! While it is standard operating procedure for your camp to issue statements five to seven days after Edwards and just to the right of Clinton . . . Your usual M.O. will make you a day lte or more late. While this is the perfect metaphor for your campaign and abilities, you might actually desire to make the deadline to maintain 'ROCKSTAR' image in the corporate media.

Obama is little substance, all hype. The key to his success: a freshness, a lack of record to run on, the constant repetition of simple feel-good platitudes that lull listeners into a sense of trust and induce in them a yearning to believe. No wonder Barack Obama is so popular among denizens of Hollywood like Oprah: they certainly have an eye for those who can create an image, can generate a buzz that compels others to suspend their disbelief, and who can induce a trance-like stargazing. But the fact is that Barack Obama does have a record to run on and its a record of vote dodging and triangulation. Barack Obama talks about the audacity of hope... but how about the audacity to show up and vote.. and not criticize others over resolutions you conveniently missed while campaigning

Keith,
Pat Healy is bullshittin’ pretty hard on the pages of the NYT.

As opposed to Healy’s lame ass drivel in the NYT; Joe Wilson, an actual eyewitness of the time, has interesting things to tell. Says Wilson:

“During my tenure as Senior Director for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration, I had the responsibility for helping to plan and execute President Clinton's historic trip to that continent. It was a trip that forever changed the way American administrations think about Africa. I spent eleven days with President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton traveling to six countries and meeting with leaders from many more. She was a full participant in all of our activities and a key adviser--and for good reason. Hillary had previously traveled to Africa, leading a prominent U.S. delegation to several countries. On her return she was instrumental in persuading the president that he should invest that most precious of presidential assets--time--in his own trip. People who are now senior advisers to Senator Obama were involved in both of those trips. So it is mystifying to me that they have allowed themselves to "forget" the key role Hillary played in such a major shift in approach to that part of the world and have participated in a negative campaign tactic on the part of the Obama campaign to demean her significant contributions to foreign policy of which they are well aware.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece

Check out how the Brits regard your hero's lack of foreign experience or interest. Year, intuition helps out. Just ask Mr. bush, he saw a good man by look at the eyes of Mr. Putin.

The Chicago Sun-Times carried the story: I was elected yesterday, Obama said. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. Ive never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow Im immediately going to start running for higher office just doesnt make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that Im the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. He further elaborated: Look, I’, a state senator who hasn’t even been sworn in yet. My understanding is that I will be ranked 99th in seniority. . . I’m going to be spending the first several months of my career in the U.S. Senate looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work.

So, in four years, Obama went from figuring out how to use the telephones and finding bathrooms, to becoming a foreign policy expert, while missing 1/3 of his votes and failing to hold a single hearing as a Senate Foreign Relations committee member. Right… When Oprah went down to Obama, there was all this Obama is the messiah hype. They were acting as he was some Messiah. Maybe he is.. maybe he can become an expert while not holding any hearings.

Like the previous person said, OBAMA is overrated.

And, of course, Senator Obama chairs the prestigious Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs.

Unlike Senator Clinton, whose Subcommittee that she chairs meets regularly and produces legislation that Michael A. and her other detractors can then make fun of (protecting Puerto Rican rainforests - bwah haha!) -

Senator Obama's committee, which is responsible for Senate relations with the European Union and NATO, hasn't met ONCE since he's been the chair. Not once.

Of course, that might force him to actually take a strong, controversial position on something, so I guess it's understandable - especially in an election year.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/22/173810/01

That's the link to MYDD story along with a contest to help send Senator Obama to Europe to look around a little. Oh, yeah, he's never actually ever been to Europe, and we know one gains so much foreign policy experience just by spending quality time in a place like Indonesia, Europe, etc.

Let's see - chairs an important Senate subcommittee on European affairs that hasn't held a single hearing. Hasn't ever even been to Europe.

Most impressive.

As others noted, this is not quite a new message for Obama. Indeed, it has been obvious from the beginning that people who believe it just can't get any better than the Clinton Presidency were going to vote for Hillary as the next best thing to voting for Bill again.

The thing is, that pretty clearly is not 50% of the Democratic Party, and probably isn't more than around 30%. So the opportunity is there for whomever can seize the support of the other 70% or so of Democrats who believe something better is possible.

Here's an item. Current score in Advisor Wars:

Obama 73
Clinton 232

(h/t Political Radar)

DTM wrote:

By the way, the subtext of posts like CalD's at 10:13 is very interesting. This has been a consistent theme of Clinton supporters--that you are being a disloyal Democrat if you question in any way the Clinton legacy.

Blow it out your ass, DTM. I find your endless parades of straw men tedious.

CalD, I think you mean "endorsement wars" as not all the persons listed do or will serve in an advisory capacity.

CalD,

Those sorts of intemperate comments likely are not helping your candidate either. But I do sympathize with the position you are in: so much of Clinton's campaign depends on not making her real arguments for her candidacy explicit, so it is natural you would get upset when people make those arguments explicit.

I don't think this is a right argument by Obama essentially blaming both GWB and Bill Clinton for all the problems we had for past 7 years. There were lot of good things happened under Bill Clinton such as 22.5 million jobs, budget surplus etc. Whether you like it or not Bill Clinton is still very popular not only Iowa but in the US. Bill Clinton was more popular than Regan when he finished his second term.

Frankly I am surprised at some of the comments above saying that Obama is spot on etc. I think Obama should make this election between Hillary and himself. He should stay away from picking a fight with Bill Clinton. Progressive blogs in past have criticized republicans and GWB when they tried to blame the problems of past 7 years on Clinton. Isn't Obama using the same republicans talking points?

Pandora,

I would agree with you about Obama keeping the race between Hillary and him, but Hillary is using her husband's experience and years as part of her campaign, therefore it is subject to attack or comment by any of the candidates. Bill can handle himself, as seen on the Charlie Rose show, he has no problem campaigning for Hillary.

DTM: What I am doing is pretty simple. I am telling you, repeatedly at this point, using simple English words that you should have no trouble understanding, that I am bored shitless of you, your endless straw men and all your other sleazy fallacies of misdirection. I suggest that you go try and sell them to someone who's buying.

Vena, DTM

First of all you do not want to end your closing argument by taking a swipe at one of the most popular democratic president since JFK. It just leaves bad taste. You want to end on a positive note.

Secondly everyone knows that Bill and Hillary are a team. I personally support Hillary (softly) mainly because of Bill Clinton knowing that he will be there in the WH in case of a major disaster like 9/11.

Now you can disagree with Bill Clinton's policies and I know lot of progressives have issue with NAFTA etc but most Americans agree that Bill Clinton was far superior president than GWB at least most democrats would agree with that.

Senator Obama says the problems that were created before GWB got worse during GWB. Frankly, I am not sure what were the problems that got worse in GWB years that were created during Bill Clinton's tenure.

Obama has my full support because he already has a record of bringing about needed changes, he has out-sized wisdom and intellect and good judgment sorely needed at this time, and he has a core of decency and integrity which is fairly uncommon among politicians.

The fact that Obama can masterfully articulate his vision and can inspire those who hear him is a decided plus. I imagine a President Obama who will use the power of the bully pulpit to engage ordinary Americans into the concepts of 1] shared resolve to improve our government, making it responsive to all citizens, and 2] shared identity in tackling problems whether domestic and international.

I want Obama to be President because I love my five grandchildren. I fear for their future if we just get more of the same old divisiveness which maintains the status quo power structures in Washington. I believe that the status quo situation is actually a matter of continuing collusion among the party elites, and quite simply, Obama is not part of that established set of players. Everything Obama has achieved has derived from his own personal abilities.

That there are some really inane folks who blindly denigrate his life, his work, his name, or even his articulated vision just tells me how juvenile and stupid and ugly the discourse has become in this country. A country that cannot rise above that sort of vileness doesn't offer the atmosphere which any of our grandchildren deserve.

I've always found being a grown-up to be highly over-rated. On the upside however, the experience that comes with it -- like knowing a straw man when you see one and that you should have no patience for people who constantly try to use them -- that can come in quite handy.

Pandora:

I don't think this is a right argument by Obama essentially blaming both GWB and Bill Clinton for all the problems we had for past 7 years. There were lot of good things happened under Bill Clinton such as 22.5 million jobs, budget surplus etc. Whether you like it or not Bill Clinton is still very popular not only Iowa but in the US. Bill Clinton was more popular than Regan when he finished his second term.

Well, there have been a few presidents even before Bill Clinton :)

While it is certainly a "swipe" against the somewhat unrealistic nostalgia of Clinton, is is also a part of his larger "generational change" theme of trying to get past the (mainly social issues) fights of the last century.

Vena,

You still haven't answered my question. What were the problems that BO is talking about that were created during Clinton years that got worst during GWB years besides trade deficit with China.

Pandora,

Well you know, every president inherits problems not of their own creation. Some they're able to solve. Others, not so much. Still others they may create themselves and some of those, along that some that came with the house, will inevitably get passed on to the next tenants. Obviously no one, not even a president, can solve all the country's problems, let alone the world's. The mark of a truly great one is therefore simply that they somehow manage to solve more problems than they create and actually leave the campsite cleaner than they found it.

Bill Clinton arguably did manage that feat. George W. Bush most certainly has not. And I sincerely doubt Mr. Obama is going to get much mileage out of bashing President Clinton or trying to lay Bush's shortcomings at his feet. I particularly doubt he'll get much mileage in that attempt among activist Democrats who weren't born yesterday, i.e., the kind of people who tend to turn out most for primaries and caucuses.

CaID,

I agree with you. Most people can see beyond these silly arguments. Bill Clinton was a smart, studious, intelligent president and did remarkable thing during his presidency but even after his presidency he is still doing lot of good work (e.g AIDs in Africa) around the world and also trying to bring people together to solve issues like malaria, typhoid and poverty in poor countries.

Although I admire Obama for what he has achieved in his life, his passion and even some of his politics, I think he is 8 years too early. I would like to see him as a presidential candidate sometime in future may be 2016. I just hope that he hasn't blown his chances by trying it out now.

Pandora...
You asked: "Which problems is BO talking about that were there before the Bush Administration that he attributes to the Clinton Administration?".

1.) How about Etraordinary Rendition? According to Richard Clarke, from his book "Against all Enemies", here is his accounting on the Origin Extraordinary Rendition-"Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government. . . The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

2.) The Telecommunications Act of 1996: This is what Russ Feingold has to say abouty it:"During the debate of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I joined a number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership rules because of concerns about the impact on consumers, artists, and local radio stations. Since its passage, the effects of the Telecommunications Act have been far worse than even I imagined.

The elimination of the national radio ownership caps and relaxation of local ownership caps in that legislation have triggered a wave of consolidation and caused harm to consumers, artists, concert goers, local radio station owners and promoters. This legislation did not simply raise the national ownership limits on radio stations – it eliminated them all together.

A diverse range of people are rightly concerned about the effects of concentration and consolidation in the radio and concert industries. Concert goers have told me about higher ticket prices. Broadcasters, artists, and others in Wisconsin and across the country have told me about reduced diversity and localism in the music industry. And local businesses have spoken about anti-competitive behaviors that have put them on an unfair playing field."...I would only add that one would have to be blind not to see the propagation of dishonest, misleading, shallow news that we now get because of this. I contend that the Iraq War probabaly would not have even been possible, nor the re-election of GWB without the corruption of the TV/Cable news services due to corporate ownership by a few entities of everything we see, hear, or read. Rupert Murdoch was able to create NewsCorp under the lack of protection in the public interest because of this act of 1996. The effects of this constitution shredding piece of DLC legislation may be irreversable.

3.) USS Cole, 1st WTC Bombing, Rowanda,etc. Foreign Policy bonifides? How much was done to initiate an energy policy that is any different from the Cheney legacy? Carter started a responsible move away from biofuels towards the future, he even had solar panels on the roof of the WH. Reagan Destroyed what Carter started, and only got us in deeper with the Saudis. Clinton showed zero foresight, and undercut any efforts by Al Gore to move the country away from where we are now. Clinton and the DLC only made the hold of multinational oil companies on our foreign policy even stronger. Bush came to office with a pat hand because of Clinton and the DLC. Our message for the working man was lost, and NAFTA sealed our fate.

3.) Destruction of the Progressive Caucus for the gain of the DLC:
We lost Congress, Governorships, and progressive voices due to the corporate ownership of the Clintons and the DLC.

There are many, many more things that I can bring up to credit the DLC and the Clintons with the destruction of the Democratic Party, and the selling out to the Corporations of our future. The Clintons did that. The DLC, and The Clintons only care about themselves. They don't give a rat's ass about the American People, much less the Constitution of the United States. Case in point? The 22nd Ammendment. Just an attempt at the presidency by Hillary Clinton violates the spirit of the 22nd Ammendment as it is an end run around it to get Bill a 3rd Term. They are so austantacious that they don't even bother to hide it! It is a selling point for them!
Nah....Time to move on. Obama is the best choice to open up a new frontier in American History.

A couple problems that manifested under clinton I:

1. The "privatization" of government functions. It started in earnest under clinton I and exploded under the king. Basically, its the gift of taxpayer dollars to big political donors and corporate fat-cats by way of no-bid government contracts. Its very inefficient and costly as countless studies have shown and its just a give away. We can thank mr. bill for that one also.

2. Welfare "reform," screwing the poor.

3. The concentration of wealth for the privileged few at the expense of the poor and middle class.

4. He and clinton II cost the dems control of congress on 94. It is comical that demac claims that clinton II will be able to get so much done with a democratic congress, which of course assumes that her nomination won't cost the dems the senate, which it might. She refused to deal with the dem congress on health care reform. It was a take it or leave it proposition. Hmmmm, sounds like the king doesn't it.

The 90's were not all that rosy as people try to portray. They were not as bad as the last 7 years, but neither were the 50's, 60's, or 70's. Let's bring back jimmy if you want to relive a prior decade demac. I'd rather look to the future.

Monal, I am an anybody but clinton II person and would be happy with any of the dems other than clinton II. My least favorite of the rest of the pack is edwards, but he is better than clinton II. I like biden, dodd and richardson. They clearly have much more experience than the front runners and would do a better job than clinton II. I just can't get into this personality cult worship that clinton II people are into. It's soooo, republican.

Pandora,
Of course Obama would want to close on a positive note; but he’s in a terrible fix by his own doing. He advocates “change” (not that anyone knows what it means exactly but it sounds nice and all) and so must be for something different (different from what exactly nobody knows either).

The problem is thus:
Different from Bush – no problem. But all Dem candidates are vastly different from Bush. So there will not be any more “change” with Obama, relative Clinton or Edwards. So Obama must seek difference elsewhere and the only other thing left then is the Clinton Presidency. Of course Obama is also very different from Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Kennedy and Reagan etc – but those presidencies are a bit too far away in time to make a compelling contrast.

So in order to make his appeal for “change” he must trash Bill Clinton’s presidency. For “change” to have any meaning in the hands of Obama, “change” is essentially an attack line, a form of negative campaigning if you will. So there’s no wonder he’s still struggling with that closing message. To stay positive he must disavow the “change” (or at least make it ineffectual by limiting it to Bush only) or go on the negative against the most popular President in recent history. I’m certain Obama will go negative and trust the mainstream media to cover for him. And so his closing note will be all about attack, attack, attack.

The “hope” he’ll definitely put on hold for now.

Re: My preceding "Closing Argument" Against Obama.

LOL. Sorry for the garbled text! Do not attempt to revise a thought while posting from a hand-held!

"(despite [being] having had to work a hostile Repub congress and being hounded [ing] by an over-zealous "independent" prosecutor.)"

Posted in transit to NYC from NJ for the holiday!

DonnaG said:

"That there are some really inane folks who blindly denigrate his life, his work, his name, or even his articulated vision just tells me how juvenile and stupid and ugly the discourse has become in this country."

Yes, DonnaG, my goal in my political life is to someday be as reasoned and civil to other posters as you have been re Hillary Clinton and to me.

roo_P wrote on December 26, 2007 10:38 PM:
colonpowwow,

"To be fair, there have been no hearings of the SFRSoEA (colonpowwow's note: Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs that Obama chairs and that hasn't met once since he's been chair) since 1999 so far as I can tell."

Well, a cursory look on the internets shows me that it met in April 2004, Gordon Smith chaired, re anti-Semitism in Europe. More to follow.

Let's see - no controversial European issues re NATO, European Market, falling dollar vs. the Euro, Muslim issues in France, Denmark, etc., Terrorism issues in Europe, and anti-Semitism issue must have been successfully resolved.

Hillary's subcommittee meets regularly and passes legislation pertinent to their mandate - she last chaired a hearing in November 2007.

It is appalling that Obama hasn't even begun to do his job with this important assignment, although he has no problem loudly and proudly touting the fact that he chairs this foreign relations subcommittee as part of his "experience."

I got an idea. Why doesn't he call a quick meeting, everyone can say "Present," and then they can adjourn.

At least then nobody can say anymore that Chairman Obama, who has never even been to Europe, has never once called his European Affairs Subcommittee to order.

To paraphrase dschungu,

I am colonpowwow, and I approve that anonymous posting at 10:30 am.

;-)

Oh, it worked, excellent.

All of those guys were flawed, yet none of those guys were terrible--yes, even including St. Reagan.

I seem to recall Bill having a few flaws too (and I'm a fan).

dc, you are too funny. I could take each of your silly posts and switch clinton II for obama and you would actually be describing clinton II. Are you projecting?

Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 10:56 AM:

dc, you are too funny. I could take each of your silly posts and switch clinton II for obama and you would actually be describing clinton II. Are you projecting?

I am sure you could, and I know you have already done it many times [and might even believe it], but the question is: would the switched narrative be credible? I think not, at least it won't for intellectually honest people, who are willing to compare HRC's and BHO's lifetime achievements objectively.

bvd:

Do you think President Obama's kid should not run for president in 2024?

It's a good thing there isn't another Roosevelt or Adams running this time.

dc, now we know mr. bill did the wacky weed. Are you projecting that problem to clinton II as well by you fixation on drugs? Was she toking with mr. bill? Hmmm, maybe we should find out.

I agree on the disconnect from reality. Just read your posts dc.

Ok, colonpowwow, she was presidential material in the mid 90's????? How is that possible?

Michael A.

Although she never seriously publicly entertained a bid, Hillary Clinton was included in most early polls re the Democratic nomination in 2000 (sort of like Al Gore being included this year due to his prominence in the party).

She, unlike Obama, decided the best way to take the next step was to serve some time in the US Senate and further establish her credentials. Senator Obama would be wise to have followed her example, although I think he'll still be a major contender (and, I hope, victor) in 2016.

The spectacle of so many believing that Obama has the "vision and gut instinct" to be the "uniter" who would save the free world reminds me of the "Yangs" in

Star Trek Epsiode 54, Season 2: The Omega Glory

When Kirk and Spock mention the word "freedom" while plotting a jailbreak, the Yang perks up and tells Kirk that he has spoken a [holy] worship word.

How is this fiction just like the fiction that is Obama Glory? Simple:
Obama can surely talk the big the talk -- to a chorus of amens -- but with no evidence that he has what it would take to walk the walk, it seems to me like this is the same sort of blind and primitive belief that had turned a tattered piece of the US Constitution into the "Holy Words" for the Yangs!

brewmn wrote:
The point isn't that Clinton was a terrible president; he just got next to nothing done for the poor and working classes in this country. He also maintained his political viability by giving the corporatists and the rightwingers far too much of what they wanted (see, e.g., welfare reform and NAFTA).

altho he was able to increase the numbers of the poor while undermining and eliminating much of any 'safety net' for them, many of whom came from the *formerly* working classes who were booted from their jobs which went over the border or overseas ..

and Anon -- good gracious, what great true details you provided on many of the horrors of the telcom act of 1996 (and from Russ Feingold too!) -- excellent and so true!

I agree with you Anon about how this further enabled the tragic outcome of having W remain in office (altho his gang helped by also stealing the election again); however, I don't conclude with you that Obama is the needed cure for any of these ongoing train wrecks.

Personally I still prefer Kucinich, but Edwards might be closest of the so-called realistic contenders, and even he isn't nearly as with it as Kucinich who just wins it in the *integrity, courage and wisdom* depts!

but the dems are so screwed up now that Kucinich seems impossibly improbable -- in large part due to the dominance of the ever-abusive corporate media which had any semblance of its integrity blown away via that rigged and bought 1996 telcom act -- the media lords really got what they paid for! and they are one with the war-mongering/profiteering lords now!

so you know Kucinich would have to go and go early, as in even ousted from that 'dem debate'!

It's going to take generations perhaps to regain what's been lost, but Edwards or anyone who's fighting our fight has to get in ASAP!

Obama doesn't convince me. He's too into bombing people he doesn't understand and having protesters 'move to the free-speech zone'!!

or, maybe it is time for the revolution to return in this land of the brave etc ...