WTF, over?

[The Traveler]

Or, to be more explicit, JESUS MOTHERFUCKING CHRIST ON A CRUTCH!!!!! What is going ON in this place.

You guys are triggering my Touret's syndrome ... and this is medically speaking a :rant:

Lissen up, asshats. The future of this country is at stake, so it is time to get yer policy wonk heads out from between yer cheeks and get grounded in some reality. And in this case reality is actually kinda good. Here are some points about the candidates ... hear them and be soothed.

1. Obama conducts a strategic analysis of Reagan, his successes, and what went wrong with the Lyndon Johnson implementation of liberalism. It does not make him a Republican. It makes him thoughtful. Actually, Obama is a cool frood. I could vote for him in a heart beat. I think he is more timid about change than generally considered ... but the man is sincere. Deal with it. His is not a phony.

2. John Edwards is rich. Through legitimate means. Get over it. It does not mean he cannot connect with my experience. He does. It does not mean he cannot connect with those less fortunate than I. He does. Thank God there are rich people who care about the folk forgotten under bridges. He is talking for free now ... with no obligations to party or friend, only his own conscience. If anyone thinks Edwards' attack on the corporatocracy makes his presidential bid easier, you need to have your head examined, or revise downward your estimate of your IQ. He is not a phony. No power in heaven or hell will keep me from the polls to vote for him.

3. Hillary Clinton is not cold. She is not manipulative. She is not the anti-christ. Actually, Hillary is a rockin' babe with a turbo charged brain and a spine of stainless steel. "Triangulation" ... heh ... or is it strategy. Frankly, I think she is far too close to the corporatocracy I have come to regard as being dangerously out of control ... but she has not sold her soul to them, nor to the devil. She is not a phony. I would vote for her without hesitation.

Sorry to contradict the many assclowns running around this board these days but what we have here are three exemplary human beings. Their less popular colleagues (Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd) are by no means lamers either.

To the issues, my friends. Regardless of who wins the nomination, there is a platform to forge, and a new liberal consensus to create.

[gateley]

1. Copy that. nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. My dear Traveler!

And what an excellent rant it is, too!

Your points are all very well made, sir!

Thank you....

K&R for righteous ranting!

:yourock:

:patriot:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

3. Now why did you consider this post to be necessary?

:evilgrin:

I give you 1000 K & R's if I could. Well said!

[pnwmom]

98. I'll second that. n/t

[Webster Green]

4. Roger, and out..

I'm going to bed.

[sjdnb]

5. Good luck with that, if one of the predetermined favorites become the nominee

I'm not saying neither COULD do the job, just that the way they've performed to date can't be considered either very smart or progressive.

[madrchsod]

6. you are not to question ........ you are to.....

hell don`t ask me...i`m a dumb ass cause i voted for obama in illinois...figure that out

[JeffR]

7. Thank you

A thousand times, thank you.

If this could just be pinned to the top of GD until the convention, things would brighten considerably.

[Yael]

8. K&R and thank you for the perspective

I have lost mine at times.

:toast:

[The Traveler]

52. Me too, buddy.

We just be human folk, after all.

:toast:

[pingzing58]

9. Thanks Traveler and let us defend the right of DUers to speak their mind in freedom and challenge

each other as we seek and are presented with interpretations of the facts.

[The Traveler]

51. Absolutely

But sometimes people get their blood pressure up a bit much and when too much of that happens reason is shoved into the back seat. I am not extremely happy with Obama's Reagan commentary either ... but it does contain a valuable perspective. I would add things to that perspective ... for example, many of the conservative victories over the past 25 years were neither honorably nor honestly won. Disinformation, fraud, and bald faced lies make a poor basis for public policy.

But if you are willing to confidently blow sunshine up people's asses and shove the costs into the future you can win some elections and make people feel good about stupid policies. And that, I think, is what happened in the Reagan years and the years that followed.

[pingzing58]

68. Hah! "Blow sunshine up peopl's asses."

[KitchenWitch]

10. Stop making sense!

:applause:

[The Traveler]

53. Hi KW!

Good to see ya! **blows kisses**

[SaveOurDemocracy]

11. Good one ... K&R! n/t

[eridani]

12. So, what, in your opinion, was wrong with the LBJ implementation of liberalism?

The Vietnam war, of course, but Reagan and all the other conservatives liked it. Inflation adjusted income for average Americans continued to grow until it reached a peak in 1973, greatly helped along by the Great Society. You have a problem with that because why?

[The Traveler]

59. Where it went wrong

It was, of course, the attempt to have guns and butter and lots of 'em at the same time. Don't forget that while Vietnam was a huge drain on the national treasury, it was only part of the military expenditures of the day. But all that spending pushed us into a weird situation economists had never seen before. By the time Nixon is forced to resign, the classical relationship between inflation and unemployment had broken down. Normally, high inflation implies low unemployment. But by 74 we had high unemployment AND high inflation ... a new situation and no one was sure what to do about it.

The problem with the welfare system they created back then was not the magnitude of the entitlements but the manner in which they were structured. Give $X to a person, and they can be fed. Give a little more, and they can be educated or trained. People entering the work force should be nurtured towards success, not have the rug of our support yanked out from under their feet. Because liberals were slow to adjust the system to produce better results (as measured by moving people off welfare roles and into the middle class), a window of vulnerability was opened through which conservatives could trash the supporters of the Great Society. Of course, much of that trashing was racially motivated ... and equally of course Nixon did nothing to help.

By the time Jimmy Carter takes office, this country is in really bad shape and facing many new challenges. Historians are now looking back and ... suprise ... Carter wasn't such a bad President after all. I cannot help but wonder how much better our current condition would be if only, for example, his energy and conservation policies had continued to be developed.

Just some thoughts on the subject. It is really a very complex matter, and I am certainly not expert enough to render a definitive opinion. Just my take on it, and I am often a fool

Cheers.

[IsItJustMe]

65. Great analytical work. Don't know if it's true, but it damn sure sounds true. LOL Naw, I think

your on the right track with your statements.

[uberllama42]

67. Could you clarify how the Great Society caused stagflation?

I won't argue that GS was well-administered, but I don't see how that led to simultaneous inflation and high unemployment. As far as I Know, the proximate cause of stagflation was the pair of oil shocks in 1973 and 1979. The spike in the price of energy caused cost-push inflation: goods became more expensive to bring to market, which cut supply across the board. Prices climbed and output dropped. Keynesian economics couldn't account for this situation, and eventually some economists realized that something had to be done to increase supply in the economy.

This fundamental insight into the nature of a market economy was somehow inextricably shackled to a fuck-the-poor mentality, and the term "supply-side economics" came to stand for a body of regressive tax policies and the assumption that the U.S. was above the peak-revenue tax rate on the Laffer Curve (of course, no evidence was ever presented for that claim).

The guns-plus-butter formula was relied upon by Keynesians to stimulate the economy during the Great Depression. Keynes realized that if the government spent a lot of money and raised aggregate demand, it would create jobs at the cost of higher prices. This led to the assumption that inflation and rising unemployment were mutually exclusive, which held up for about four decades until the oil shock of 1973. While I don't want to advocate deficit spending, because I think it's usually irresponsible, it was not the cause of stagflation, as far as I know.

[The Traveler]

81. Stagflation was identified

right about the time of the first oil shock. If I remember correctly ... The breakdown in the relationship between unemployment and inflataion had already happened ... the oil shock threw gas on the fire. The problem wasn't (as I said) with the GS alone but with the attempt to expand a strategic arsenal while escalating the Vietnam war AND pursuing a "War on Poverty". None of these expenditures by themselves were sufficient to set up the conditions for stagflation.

But understand the conditions did not ripen until the Nixon administration, which continued the basic policy. One of the things Nixon did was to take the currency off the gold standard ... and that had to happen sometime, I suppose. But that change in currency basis also plays a role in setting up this phenomenon ... at least according to my economics prof in 1974. (Please bear in mind economics is not my field of expertise ... I got my degree in physics .... and so my understanding of some of these things is cloudy at best.)

[eridani]

99. I agree about guns and butter. However, that is what all of our leading candidates--

--are advocating right now. None dares say that domination of the rest of the world by military force is something we can't possibly afford to do. The Rethugs of course just want the guns.

You are flat out wrong about "liberals" not moving people into middle class success. Did you manage to miss all the 1996 testimonies from single moms who strenuously objected to the cutoff of funding for college attendance for welfare recipients? They described how that comparative generosity led to their permanent exit from the welfare rolls.

[The Traveler]

104. We're talking about rates of success

The Great Society could have been better tuned, and some of its anti-fraud and abuse regulations were downright stupid ... had the effect of cutting off support just as people were starting to get on their feet but before they "had balance". (I personally know people who were victims of that phenomenon.)

The flaws and inefficiencies gave grist to the propaganda machine. In the meantime, there was the whole "guns and butter" problem, which was producing real economic hardship.

Me, I like having a beefy military capability. There are bad actors out there in the world, and we have to be prepared to defend ourselves against them. But we certainly don't need to maintain the levels necesary to dominate the world through military force, as you say. Indded, I cannot imagine how we will be able to sustain those force levels and address the bleeding sore issues that confront this country today.

I sometimes wonder if we stopped acting so damn militaristic if the number of people who wanted to whack us might go down?

[eridani]

105. Re: strong military. The question is "Strong enough to do what?"

I don't buy the notion of attacking other countries as some kind of social work with cluster bombs, and I see nothing about our actions abroad since WW II that have been anything other than dominance by force. Preparedness to deal with other imperial powers (such as the old Soviet Union) is another matter, of course. The bad actors in the world are mostly non-state actors, who would not be acting against us if we would just quit fucking with them. What would Iran look like now if the US and Britain had not overthrown their secular and democratic government in 1954?

I sometimes wonder if we stopped acting so damn militaristic if the number of people who wanted to whack us might go down? Bingo!

There is still a lot of desperation and alienation in the world, but there is no world-wide organization of desperate and alienated people--they act as individuals or in small groups.

[The Traveler]

106. Gotta keep an eye on China & Russian Federation

Partly because of our insanely aggressive foreign policy in recent years, partly because the Chinese military views a resource war as being necessary at some future point to maintain the expansion of the Chinese economy. (Chinese military not in denial about climate change, peak oil and such.)

Deterrence is the art of being scary without being so scary the other guy feels he has to shoot, but still scary enough so the other guy feels he shouldn't shoot first. It can be approached in a non-aggressive manner. Nations are deterrable (including ours) and through deterrence war can be avoided.

Deterrence is not about restricting other nations' trade (and hence access to resources) or meddling in internal politics by projection of force. I think we can agree on these points.

Obviously we are in agreement on Iran. But we might be in disagreement over Kosovo and I damn well wish we had thrown down on Rwanda. I think opposition to genocide is an appropriate use of military power.

I gotta run ... but this entire conversation to me illustrates the rationale for an old Kucinich idea ... a Department of Peace.

[eridani]

110. Opposition to genocide only works if intervening forces have no dog in the fight

Not true in Kosovo--Serbia didn't attempt to do a damned thing in Kosovo that Croatia did not SUCCESSFULLY do in the Krajina--with full American mercenary assistance. One of the demands on Serbia to avoid bombing was that they should put their state-owned businesses up for sale. That had something to do with ethnic cleansing because why?

Itervention in Rwanda by the US or by France would not have helped because both countries were taking sides in the fight. There was one general on the ground who knew what was going on, the Canadian peacekeeper Romeo Dallaire. He was not taking sides and was the only person who really knew what to do strategically and tactically. If the US and other countries would have agreed to put their forces directly under his command, he might have really succeeded. Until we get to the point where the US and other countries will actually defer to people like Dallaire, we are likely to cause more harm than good.

[progressoid]

13. Assclown! ha ha ha.

[radfringe]

14. and that is why I'm using the hide button a brazillion times a day

any thread mentioning any of the Dem candidates (pro or con) gets the HIDE button.

I'm sick and tired of the bashing and foaming at the mouth rants.

I've also started putting the "why clinton admin was bad for us" posts... grrrrrr...just a few months ago you couldn't swing a dead cat in here without reading a post lamanting how "I miss bubba"


I don't even go into GDP...the hide button would overheat and explode into a mushroom cloud.

and yes, I've been accused of sticking my head in the sand or otherwise initiating Avoidance mode - yes, but I'm alot calmer and my blood pressure is down which gives me the opportunity to focus on issues rather than fending off mudballs.

as far as the primaries go - I live in PA - primary isn't until end of April - the primary race will be pretty much over by then.

in November I'll be casting my vote for Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Sammy the garden slug if it has a "D" after it's name

[Sugar Smack]

15. *eeee*

btw, this is not a "place", *sniff* It's a forum.:D

[Sugar Smack]

16. Oh, plus K&R.

[Olney Blue]

17. Which is why I'm still undecided- I like all our Dems.

:banghead:

Great post.

[Mz Pip]

18. Terrific

:applause:

I would also add that accusing those who disagree with a particular candidate's position or opinion does not make one stupid, uninformed or ignorant of the issues.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[lonestarnot]

19. Nice.

Thanks. :applause:

[snagglepuss]

20. You are obviously an Edward's supporter. Don't you ever get tired being

right?:kick:

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. ...

:sarcasm: ?

:eyes:

[snagglepuss]

101. Not sarcastic at all! Brilliant post = brilliant poster=Edwards supporter.

[redwitch]

21. I heart you.

It had to be said. :loveya:

[The Traveler]

54. Thanks!

Yer so nice!

:hug:

[Poiuyt]

22. I think we have 3 excellent candidates

I would be proud to vote for any of them

[laylah]

23. What you said!

I like your style there, Traveler :loveya: The divisiveness on the board, especially in GD/P has become intolerable to myself and many others. I just stay outta the way and hold my own counsel. It is much safer that way.

[krabigirl]

24. Good post..I agree

[UTUSN]

25. Excellent!1 Thanks!1 n/t

[unapatriciated]

27. I think this captures your sentiment quite well...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QUiEd0IHaDs

[southerncrone]

28. Cheers to The Traveler!!!!!

One of the best threads ever on DU, IMHO!!! :thumbsup:

Repeat it if necessary along the way!
:woohoo:

[Deja Q]

29. Logical possibilities.

All of them.

Especially #1 as that aspect has brought out the "militant ninny" in all too many people.

[IronLionZion]

30. My friend, that was bloody brilliant!

Thanks for posting this. That's exactly what I was thinking except maybe for Hillary, although of course I would vote for her if she's nominated.

Yes, platform and liberal consensus and all that. And it's not like any one person is going to do it all alone. There will be a rather large and hopefully progressive administration with legislative majorities backing up the president, whoever that may be.

[SallyMander]

31. K&R

:thumbsup:

[trumad]

32. word!

[yardwork]

33. k&r

Bunch of nonsense going on around here. The latest hysteria is "Your candidate likes Reagan!!" He's dead folks. Get over it.

[DissedByBush]

34. My main problem with Edwards

His lawsuits are one of the reasons doctors perform c-sections at the drop of a hat these days. Now they're afraid of getting sued if they don't do a c-section and something goes wrong.

Needlessly cutting up our mothers is not a good thing.

Thanks, Edwards.

Full disclosure: My wife and I are big advocates of natural childbirth.

That plus his suit over pool drain covers was just money grubbing. Pool owner doesn't install cover properly, young girl gets disemboweled because other kids remove it. Do we sue the negligent pool owner? No, he doesn't have enough money. I know, let's sue the manufacturer of the cover, they have gobs of cash! Some of his other ambulance chasing got so bad that the NC legislature had to pass a law to limit it.

[Danger Mouse]

38. Ambulance chaser? Wow, been awhile since I've heard that rw smear tactic.

:hi:

[Maddy McCall]

46. Mild, compared to some of his other posts.

[Danger Mouse]

74. Considering that I just ate...

I'm not sure I want to know what other kind of crap he's been spewing.

[DissedByBush]

60. No actual response?

He started the ball rolling on millions of women needlessly cut open, denied the chance for natural childbirth, and all you can do is complain about terminology?

[Danger Mouse]

73. My actual response would've been a lot less civil.

To place blame on Edwards of something like that is so mind-bogglingly absurd it's almost comical.
Almost.

[DissedByBush]

91. Easy to blame

Edwards effectively invented the concept, filing around twenty lawsuits himself. After that it became quite popular, and doctors started doing unnecessary c-sections just to avoid being sued. The instance of c-sections quadrupled, with no corresponding decrease in cerebral palsy (what he said the lack of a c-section caused).

He made his initial fortune off these suits. Maternal and infant mortality are higher with c-sections, so you do the math.

[Maddy McCall]

102. Funny that you have so much hate for the man that only two weeks ago you were lauding.

Is it hard for you to keep your persona straight at DU? You trying to be the "common sense" Democrat here? Or are you trying to start shit with your right-wing talking points.

The most amusing of many you've made is this one, two weeks ago, in which you celebrate Edwards AND rationalizing Limbaugh's bile (while ripping Hilary apart with the usual right-wing crap).


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3118859#3119199


I think that you're having difficulty keeping your persona straight here...it's hard to remember who you're supposed to "support," when your posting history shows that you have nothing but vile for all three top candidates.

So, in the past two weeks, what changed your opinion of Edwards so severely? I'd be interested in hearing your explanation.

[DissedByBush]

103. Lauding?

It was a simple statement of fact. IMHO, there are two candidates who are for real change and actually stand a chance. That's Obama and Edwards, Kucinich being out as you've seen how much the establishment is trying to keep him out, Hillary just being establishment all the way. I didn't say I actually liked Edwards. That of course leaves Obama for me. Even though I disagree with him on things I'd vote for Kucinich if I thought he had a chance.

As far as Limbaugh is concerned it does our side no good to lie about him, and saying that he stated all soldiers against the war were phony was a lie, perpetuated by 40 senators. That makes it easy for him to make us look bad, and he did with that auction of the letter.

And I notice nobody has yet to provide a defense for Edwards. I wonder why.

[IsItJustMe]

66. Bull shit!!!!! That's the most ridiculous charge I have ever heard. But I guess you have said it

enough to yourself than you may actually believe it. Go with it my friend, if that gets you to the light, then thats alright (Don't honestly think it will though, just saying).

[Danger Mouse]

35. Very nice post. Well done.

It'll keep us cool while GD burns with the flames of hell.
:pals:

[NanceGreggs]

36. Hear, hear!

:kick: and REC'D!

[femrap]

37. K and R

Well said. You calmed my Touret.

[caraher]

39. Every DUer needs to read this before posting on the nomination race

Thanks for the spot-on rant! We need to remember just what we're all up against, and how small our very real differences really are when we look at what we've endured the past 7 years.

[SecularMotion]

40. K & R

Thanks for this great post.

[okoboji]

41. thanks

great post .....


I have found that using the "ignore" feature very handy these days. It has helped my level of stress.

[shaniqua6392]

42. Thank you for such a wonderful post!!

It made me a little teary eyed. Everything has been so divisive around here lately. I will vote for Mickey Mouse if he is a Dem. I still remain undecided and I will probably remain this way. I don't have to decide shit right now. I really don't have to choose at all. I prefer to remain undecided so that I will not be an ugly hate-monger spouting off vile diatribes on DU. We all need to unite to make sure it is a Democrat sitting in that Oval Office!!!! That is all that matters.

[Kermitt Gribble]

43. K & R!

Excellent post!!

[11 Bravo]

44. Concise, eloquent, and right on the money! K&R

[elias7]

45. thank you, well said

[SalmonChantedEvening]

47. This is so good to read.

Bravo my friend :)

[riverdeep]

48. Good perspective.

It's definitely needed here once in a while. OK, a lot.

BTW, what the heck is a 'frood'? - "Actually, Obama is a cool frood."

[The Traveler]

49. Sort of a concatentation

of "friend" and "dood", I suppose. It is from "Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Zaphod Beeblebrox was a really cool frood. :)

[stlsaxman]

50. Great rant! and so true...

all 7 have great points and some more than others.

[muyojoe]

55. NOT SURE I LIKE BEING CALLED AN ASSHAT,

But you have an excellent point. I wish everyone else would get it.

[GenDem]

56. Amen! n/t

[MasonJar]

57. Kudos, Traveler!!!!! With so much to lose and so much to gain it is

so disheartening to constantly see only disparagement of our excellent candidates. After all what if our choices were a person who does not believe in evolution or a suit with no person inside or a 9/11 promoter (that is of his personal excellent response .... GONG) or a former maverick who now kisses Bush's backside?

[BlueJac]

58. Nice

[diane in sf]

61. Thank you, my preference is Edwards, but damned if I'm talking too much trash about any

of our potential presidents.

[hunter]

62. I'll have what The Traveler's having!

:applause:

[Beregond2]

63. I can't agree.

Look, this is the time when we hash-out our positions and figure out which candidate best represents them. Of course there are going to be disagreements and some overstatements and so forth. I say that's healthy! It doesn't mean we won't come together behind our candidate when the time comes. We aren't Republicans who traditionally march in lock-step behind whatever suit has been chosen for us to worship. We're Democrats; we get mad, we fight, we THINK, we FEEL.

Yes, Hillary is a super-competent brainiac with her heart in the right place. That doesn't mean she hasn't made huge errors of judgement, nor that she is electable. Yes, Obama is a charismatic, smart guy with some good ideas. That doesn't mean he isn't naive in his hope for bipartisan cooperation, insensitive in his citing of Reagan as a figure of hope, and his courting of black fundamentalist bigots, etc. Yes, Edwards is brilliant, focused on the real issues, brave, the only candidate with the integrity to not take corporate campaign contributions, and so on. That doesn't mean...well, I can't think of any negatives about him, but no doubt others here can.

It is too early to be asking us to stifle ourselves and be good little soldiers for the cause. This choice it much too important for us to say "Any Democrat will do." The controversies in our party are a sign of it's health!

[TankLV]

64. Thank you for the dressing down - I really needed it...

"triggering my Turret's syndrome" is a great way to describe it...

this place sure manages to push all my buttons, that's for sure...

It's going to be a LOOOOONG way to November...

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

69. Oh, my!!! INDEED: "THERE IS A PLATFORM TO FORGE,..."!!!!

Often, I wonder if people have simply lost sight of the BASICS of democracy because THIS NATION IS BEING DRIVEN TOWARDS AN ANTI-DEMOCRACY PATH. It is OBVIOUS.

The weaknesses of the Democratic nominees are not only foregiveable but NOMINAL compared to the possibility of having Republican/CORPORACRAT RULE towards the demise of, not only our progress towards democracy but also greater violations of BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS beyond the fight over how governments are supposed to be structured.

I guess I was really effed up believing "democratic institutions", democratic governance was about protecting basic human rights against ALL oppressors, economic or otherwise.

[rox63]

70. Thanks for the perspective, Traveler

I will vote for whichever of our fine candidates wins the nomination. Sure, I'd prefer it if Obama was the nominee. But all of the candidates are intelligent and accomplished Dems. And I will vote for the Dem nominee in November, no matter who it is.

[VolcanoJen]

71. That's one kick-ass post, Trav.

:hug:

[7horses]

72. Right on the...

MARK!!!

[ToeBot]

75. "a new liberal consensus to create?", excuse me while I literally ROFL.

Liberal consensus, that's rich. That's high humor.

[Chovexani]

76. A great rant. But keep this in mind.

Most of the really bad shit stirring is not being done by people who are members of this community.

I used to dismiss DUers who went off on paranoid screeds about "infiltrators" as looney toons, but the Beltway has discovered the internet now, for good or ill, and all bets are off. I don't doubt that there are a lot of interns who get paid to sit around posting shit about candidates on various Dem forums and blogs to see who bites. Look for a lot of the troublemakers to suddenly disappear a week or so after the election (if they're not tombstoned first).

[mistertrickster]

77. Was it really necessary to throw the MF bomb in next to the name of millions of people's Lord

and Savior?

If you wouldn't do it to Jews and Muslims, don't do it to Christians either. How about a little PC for us too?

Thank you.

Liberal, democratic AND Christian.

[Fire Walk With Me]

78. None of them support the Democratic electoral process.

I'm still waiting for any of them to call GE and NBC to task for rigging the debates at their whim. And to get them to relent.

To allow this is beyond acceptable by any definition of acceptable. It is to accept open corporate interference with the elections.

[EV_Ares]

79. Traveler, dam good posting there and hitting the mark on all the crap

flying around here. Very true.

[Roland99]

80. Hillary: DLC. 'nuff said. Obama: Larger military. 'nuff said.

we're fucked.

[gdaerin]

82. Roger That! nt

[tavalon]

83. Bless you

I'm an Edwards supporter but whoever of the three ends up becoming President, we will have breathing room. And fuck, we need breathing room!

[lib2DaBone]

84. And your point is?

[ElectoPundit]

85. Democratic delegate race

Yeah, it looks like Huck is finished. The GOP race now looks like it will come down to Romney vs. McCain. I give advantage Romney... economy & immigration & change vs. experience and a hero.

I've done an analysis of the Democratic delegate race that people might find interesting. It's where I think Obama has to win to still pull this out. I'll have the Republican race up tomorrow on my blog.

http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/democratic-delegate-race.html

[emilyg]

86. Thank you. Great rant.

[InvisibleTouch]

87. Excellent post - thanks! n/t

[Snarkturian Clone]

88. I stay out of the candidate threads most of the time.

They've become pretty wild.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

89. "New Liberal Consensus to Create"........with Clinton?

Rant? I have another word for it .... crazy.

Clinton a liberal?

You write: ' Frankly, I think she is far too close to the corporatocracy I have come to regard as being dangerously out of control ... but she has not sold her soul to them, nor to the devil.'

Agree with the first part of the sentence and think you are in denial about the second part.

[Time for change]

90. I disagree with "Obama conducts a strategic analysis of Reagan"

To me it seems like a lot more than a strategic analysis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2721736#2722545

[LSK]

94. I saw the video and I think the whole episode is overblown

[kid a]

92. woooo hoooo - i like the way you think!!

=)

[LSK]

93. K&R

[robbedvoter]

95. What went wrong with Johnson's implementation of liberalism ? I'd like to know

I'd really, really like to know what's wrong with anti-poverty programs.

[Neshanic]

107. Me too. What did go wrong with LBJ's programs?

[asdjrocky]

96. Check. K&R

[BobTheSubgenius]

97. Splendid!

Absolutely true right to the heart of it; the internecine nonsense has to stop.

This post should be required reading for every progressive that can read it, and recited or translated as necessary to those who can't. Daily. From now until November.

[Shine]

100. K & R

:patriot: :kick:

[Neshanic]

108. Summary. We all got bitchin' candidates, none of which stands a chance against the reuplick's

machine of slime. Which one will hold on the longest after the convention? Who knows.

I being a good Democrat will vote for whoever is served up.

The question is will they be able to beat a reuplick campaign against them with the enemy knowing and fighting for the last vestiges of their conservative run in this country?

A cornered animal is the most dangerous. They feel the collapse of their conservatise right-wing world. They will do anything to keep it as long as possible.

Are any of those three ready? Really?

Let's hope to God they are.

[Political Heretic]

109. Yawn.