Mother Jones - Comments for "South Carolina's Lasting Impact"

Everyone quit stressing, will you? Hillary wins the nomination: everyone votes for Hillary. Obama wins the nomination: everyone votes for Obama.

As has been observed, the main thing is to get the Reds out.

The bad news, of course, is that our choices are limited to these two. The good news is that, despite the bad news, the debate has advanced immensely from eight years ago.

Now, even the Reds are giving lip service to National Health. True, their version is just another giveaway to the HMOs (as Billary and Obama's are, to a large degree), but at least it's in the debate.

The democratic voter turnout in the primaries so far is more than encouraging. It's almost as though voters have discovered that politics is at least as engaging as "reality" TV!

Now all we need is a third party.

----------
Kill your TV, and free your mind!

I hope you are right. I am totally disheartened. If the Clintons brought back to life the pall of racism we thought was dead in Iowa, they will succeed. Sadly, Hillary will win to McCain who will be another mad King George insofar as war. Of course, he will have to renact the military draft and then let us see what the "patriots" in our midst react when they start killing and maiming their own children.

All the way with L.B.J
who hoo!!

OK. This post is just plain cracked. No politician tries to lose a precinct, a county, or a state. Sure, maybe they don't fight in areas where they know they can't win, but that's not what you wrote about. The risk associated with an attempted loss is far too high. Especially in a presidential race, and especially considering how cloase 2000 was and how divided the country is right now. Even the internal Democratic and Republican divides are too close and bitter right now to risk a "calculated" loss in the primary.

If you think that Obama supporters are going to support Hillary and reward Bill for their less than honorable conduct during this campaign YOU ARE SORELY MISTAKEN. We are TIRED of the same old dirty tricks, and divisive politicking. They throw a rock and then complain when someone picks it and says something about it. They throw the race card, then blame Obama when anybody disagrees or calls it what it is. Anyone who calls them on their crap is labeled "part of the Obama campaign - or Obama himself."

I suggest those of you who are seriously thinking about rewarding Bill and Hillary rent the movie "Primary Colors" and watch it in light of what is going on today. It is illuminating - and it would be even if it were not based on the Clintons.

Paul Miller: Your reasoned thinking in a country in which far too many voters rely on sound bites of information rather than dig for facts, is a breath of fresh air.

Ditto, Tommy, you belong on the Blue Marble blog or drifting down Old Man River. This line is for serious talk about "identity politics". What is the future of "identity politics"? We have a Civil War going on in the party.

Thanks to Mother Jones its smart, fearless role in the media.

How can one read all these comments and not want to speak up! I guess one can't. As an environmental scientist and humanist (labels for orientation), I do need to put in a few points about SUSTAINABILITY (environmental, social, economic) as a bipartisan focus. The stability of our 'modern' society is precarious ? and has become more so since the 80s when, symbolically Reagan turned us away from climate change, planned parenthood, social sensitivity, etc. and towards the enclavism, the divine right of the rich, and the American Dream. Look at the world food indicators (per person); nearly all of them peaked back in the 80s. Since then, we have had 12 yrs of similar policies. Clinton did make a difference in many of these trends despite little backing from congress and he failed with others ? remember Kyoto, gays in the military, the 4cent gas tax. He did reinstate funding for Planned Parenthood, which was again withdrawn with the inauguration of GWB. This seemingly small act made a huge difference in the lowering of the rate of world population growth during the nineties. Also symbolically, the year 2008 was predicted to be the year in which we would see peak in oil production as demand overcomes supply (naturally there were other predictions). This is a complicated computation, but one can understand easily that the down side of this curve is much less friendly than the up side. Oil wars and price increases are expected responses to this problem. If one researches the data, there are plenty of other unfavorable global trends in food, available water, fish, desertification, immigration, arable land, deforestation, rich-to-poor ratios, sales of military arms, etc. It's bad enough to look at the fragility of our economy, and thereby the global economy. Neither may respond, as we would like, to simple knob twisting. History has taught us that failure to adapt to resource, cultural, or economic changes is a precursor to collapse.

What I believe adamantly is that the worst thing the US and the planet could have is continued policies of the present administration. A full sweep for the Democrats is the only hope, and this should be our primary objective. However, the leader of this sweep must understand the magnitude and urgency of the problem, must have experience in the functioning of both the US and international governance, must understand the dysfunction of our democracy (corporate influence), mush understand the dysfunction of the global market (no social, environmental, political accountability), not be a social bigot.

What I know scientifically is that this is likely to be our last chance to stave off a planetary crisis of incalculable dimensions. Considerable damage is already done (as Al Gore has explained about climate) but to keep the ship afloat we need an all-out effort, NOW. I realize that because of the learning curve, this is difficult to accept for persons who had less exposure to the information. This is why leadership, knowledge, and experience are so critically important in this election. Like it or not, the US is the best, and maybe only, country to lead us out of this predicament. Like it or not, the US is not at all independent of the rest of the world. Like it or not, we cannot solve an issue here and issue there, most of our problems are irrevocably connected. This is why accepting a practical vision of SUSTAINABILITY is essential to guiding a bipartisan reform of our infrastructure, governance, economy, and social attitudes.

If I could roll up Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kucnich, and Gore into one leader, I would vote with hope and confidence in that one.

Thanks to Mother Jones its smart, fearless role in the media.

How can one read all these comments and not want to speak up! I guess one can't. As an environmental scientist and humanist (labels for orientation), I do need to put in a few points about SUSTAINABILITY (environmental, social, economic) as a bipartisan focus. The stability of our 'modern' society is precarious and has become more so since the 80s when, symbolically Reagan turned us away from climate change, planned parenthood, social sensitivity, etc. and towards the enclavism, the divine right of the rich, and the American Dream. Look at the world food indicators (per person); nearly all of them peaked back in the 80s. Since then, we have had 12 yrs of similar policies. Clinton did make a difference in many of these trends despite little backing from congress and he failed with others remember Kyoto, gays in the military, the 4cent gas tax. He did reinstate funding for Planned Parenthood, which was again withdrawn with the inauguration of GWB. This seemingly small act made a huge difference in the lowering of the rate of world population growth during the nineties. Also symbolically, the year 2008 was predicted to be the year in which we would see peak in oil production as demand overcomes supply (naturally there were other predictions). This is a complicated computation, but one can understand easily that the down side of this curve is much less friendly than the up side. Oil wars and price increases are expected responses to this problem. If one researches the data, there are plenty of other unfavorable global trends in food, available water, fish, desertification, immigration, arable land, deforestation, rich-to-poor ratios, sales of military arms, etc. It's bad enough to look at the fragility of our economy, and thereby the global economy. Neither may respond, as we would like, to simple knob twisting. History has taught us that failure to adapt to resource, cultural, or economic changes is a precursor to collapse.

If I could roll up Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kucnich, and Gore into one leader, I would vote with hope and confidence in that one.

Thanks to Mother Jones its smart, fearless role in the media.

If I could roll up Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kucnich, and Gore into one leader, I would vote with hope and confidence in that one.

Wow- So much passion and wrong headed opionions. If you don't think Obama has a plan, listen to his words, not just his outstanding oratory. Why does that seem to irritate so many people - he speaks clearly enough. If you think Obama is not saying anything of essence, just because he says it well, then you're not listening. If you can't listen, read his book. If you think Billary isn't manipulative you didn't watch the near tear scene in N.H. or pay attention to the mojo in MJ by Jonathan Stein. He nailed it. Bill Clinton is not that stupid, to alienate so many people by becoming so hostile to someone who not only preaches unity but practices it or tries to by keeping race (and gender) out of the debates from the start.(And he was unjustly criticized for that by claiming he was pretending to be white). Don't you people get it? He doesn't think race or gender should matter. And it shouldn't. He has more ties to the white community anyway if it comes to that. Why can't everyone just lose the freakin' concept of race. Why is Hillary predending to run for president when it's now obvious Bill is the candidate? Bill Clinton tried to ridicule Obama and piss him off right from the start so he could start the racial thing. We all know the media ignored Edwards completely and Obama mostly for months now, in favor of Hillary who was obviously being groomed to be president by everyone, so his accusation that the media was behind Obama was laughable. Clinton did make it clear that he will be in charge if Hillary wins. Is that supposed to be reassuring or acceptable? Is this a monarchy where families reign on and on? What happened to the first woman president and all that crap? When a man of vision with great leadership talent (since when is inspiring people a bad thing?)came along with a a new vision and the charisma and inspirational magic to make other people see and feel it - it caused hubby Bill to worry that he might miss his grab for the power ring again, and they cooked up the S. Carolina landslide deliberately to make it look like a white against black issue. Obama probably knew he was being set up but had to fight back to avoid looking too weak to be president but by doing so he fell into the Billary trap. Thank heaven there are a few ethical people of power out there who also saw what was happening, and stepped in. I'm talking Ted Kennedy of course.. S. Carolina would have gone to Obama anyway, but probably not by much. By pissing everyone off , Bill managed to make it a landslide to sway public opinion because they are gambling on getting the next important state, California,
which has a whole lot of the Mexicans who love Hillary (and admit they are prejudiced)
and it just might push some (now) nervous whites her way too. I think Bill Clinton may be reverting to what he was probably born and raised as - he sure seemed to enjoy his attack. And did anyone get Hillary's nonchalant explanation as "oh well, that was caused by sleep deprivation". How stupid do they think we are? How cleverly contrived and manipulative. Is this a set up between Bill and the media as well - pretending to be mad at the news media, when Hillary's nomination and election will obviously benefit the sponsors? Is it all just a joke and we are the ultimate fools? I'll take a chance on Obama, at least he hasn't had time to learn to be so slimy. (and all you people who say you want Edwards, how come nobody votes for him then?)

Nelly, it is our turn now, the Black Man. Without the Black vote, the Democrats will lose, 8 more years of GOP.

I love Obama's pretty prose, but wish he could back it up with specific policy plans--which Hillary tends to go overboard on. These aren't anybody's talking points, just a report from an avid viewer of c-span.

The thing I don't get is everyone getting so appalled by tough campaigning and a strategic maneuver of trying to connect Obama to Jesse Jackson. Hello?! It's the obvious move in a competitive nomination battle. Suppose Obama wins this nomination: What do we expect to hear from the GOP?!?!? (Have you seen how even righteous John McCain is twisting a Romney remark about timetables for exiting Iraq?) They are going to have a field day on the drug use. The only hope that Obama could ever have of becoming president in 2008 is this: That Billary makes all of his weak points (real or just apparent--including the name and the meaning of his skin color in a nation with our history!) so well-worn in the American psyche between now and the Democrat nomination being sown up that no one will be very excited by any of it when the GOP starts repeating it all. (And the thing Hillary has going for her there is that there's nothing new under the sun to get upset about, just lots and lots and lots of old stuff.)

My point is that Obama and his supporters need to get used to the idea that people compete hard to get their hands on the kind of power and prestige that goes with that office. He can react to that junk in any way that he thinks will help him win, even if it's to whine, I guess, but I don't think whining is going to seem very presidential. Either ignore it and get on with naming some specifics (particularly what sort of NEW and MODERATE positions he's going to move to, from his undistinguished liberal record to date, to bring all Americans together!!), or dish back as good as ya get. But to pretend it's racist when anyone voices a question about whether he can deliver any specifics to measure up to all his rhetoric is really silly. And worse, it makes all the expressions of true racism out there look less harmful than they really are. 'Where's the beef' is not automatically a racist question just because one's interlocutor is black. (And, sorry, but most Americans already realized he was a black-skinned man long before Billary "painted" him as such. Let's not start blaming the Clintons for the size of his ears or his height next, ok? Even they cannot control absolutely all of reality, much as you love to hate them for any excuse and none.)

I think what everyone is really wondering is - can she deep throat an elk? I mean, really? Or perhaps someone like porn star Mandingo and his 15" dong? Huh, whaddya think, Hillary??

Just some facts about american population data - 53% of the American population is Female. I think its about time a woman had a go at running this country - NOW THAT WLD BE REAL CHANGE. Woman have lead muslim, European and Asian countries , but never in this wonderful American Democracy of ours - what a damn joke!! Its time to change - Its time for some WOMEN POWER baby!!

Mother Jones - Comments for "South Carolina&#039;s Lasting Impact"

Mother Jones - Comments for "South Carolina's Lasting Impact"