http://strike08.com/

http://www.democrats.com/donor-strike-2007

Don’t forget, corporate america has a large dog in this fight, and they are about at the point that they don’t care a fig about protecting george bush’s legacy-ass.
I think Big Oil has been eating the ppb increase in order to protect bush and the goopers from pump-pissoff, but push is coming to shove, and if the GOP punjabs see bush dragging THEM down to perdition, they will help build the barbecue pit on the white house lawn and invite americans, one and all, to have a turn on the spit.

The market is twitching around like a blowfly on a hot turd, and the dollar is, too. They bounce some, but the overall track, in inverse ratio to the price of oil (which is a hair away from breaking the psychological barrier of $100 ppb.) is down.

You guys read that TimesOnLine link I put up at #54. The writer didn’t talk about economics, but his point was well made; it was basically:

“We aint seen nuthin’ yet.”

And I think he’s right as a snake. And that is one reason why I’m scared shitless of nominating Hillary Clinton. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that she’s a woman, and practically everything to do with the fact that she is, and has to be, with her record, soft on Iraq as an issue in this election, and that will be bad enough if Iraq stays at the same level of “stability” (8 more of our troops killed in the past two days, and dozens more Iraqis…) but if, as there is every possibility of happening, it worsens, and if we nominate Clinton, the republican candidate will have one hell of a free pass on what bush and the GOP have wrought.

And we cannot win this election if that happens.

Why is anybody still talking about Iran? Al Quieda in Pakistan getting nukes and missles is my nightmare.
Given all the money we gave Pakistan they could have finnaced a huge public works project that could have built up public support, which currently they don’t have.
Instead they probably just bought more weapons from us which after Al Quieda takes over will be used on us.
Given the ties between Al Quieda and Pakistani inteligence its not the lawyers being jailed who are the threat or the oppostion political parties.
Its a coup from the inteligence guys in conjunction with Al Quieda that is the threat.
We would not even know thata coup occured until Israeli radar picks up the incoming Pakistani missles. Assuming they can reach that far. If not the Green Zone maybe?

A lot of folks hereabouts seems to think the solution is the Bush-Cheney approach…back Musharraf in his coup.

I think that the solution is actually the opposite. People like Benazair Bhutto and the popular cricket player Imran Khan had massive popular support. They appealed to the same “audience” that the Islamists were trying to lure…the young, the poor and he aspiring Middle Class. Musharraf, the military and the feudal landowners and big businessmen were actually driving people into the Islamist camp because there was no alternative. In fact, it’s secularist parties that have the upper hand in elections. Islamist parties are marginal in Pakistan. recall that Bhutto won the last two Democratic elections in Pakistan, once after she’d been thrown out already for accustations of corruption. The only way AQ would be able to take power, I sspect is by an internal military coup. An unpopular dictator, dependant on military support, is a prescription for “replacement.

But I’ve been saddened that people who assert they are “progressives” are so willing to abandon the Human Rights Activists and legal structure in Pakistan because of the fear that Al Qaida will get the nukes. In fact, supporting the status quo will actually move things faster to such a situation. Internal military coups are a lot more unpredictable than democracies.

cinnamonape @ 96

Thought Gore was.

Damnit, I’m spewing a Repug meme; It’s Clinton’s fault…

I thought it was just like that “invented the internet” thingee.

But then there’s the YouTube Evidence

Gore Debates Perot on NAFTA

Japandrew @ 39

Tom Cole (R-OK) was interviewed on NPR. He’s heading up the GOP congressional election effort. He claims not to be too concerned about the war in Iraq as a 2008 issue, because there is so little distance between Bush’s position and that of the Dem contenders… Most of Cole’s optimism about GOP electoral prospects seem empty, but his confidence on this point seems well founded…

I can’t stand Tom Cole. But on this he may have a point.

And Bush will also begin to reduce the troop level there…which will make it even harder for those who argue we should have a substantial contingent there to “fight Al Qaida” rather than embroil temselves in internecine Iraqi politics and civil strife.

But wait! Isn’t Al Qaida practically a non-factor anymore? And why couldn’t the Iraqis deal with this? Is their army only there to support one or the other side in the sectarian conflicts?

But given the “Iranian drumbeat” [note that Edwards speech to the Herzliya Conference was way back in January…just as Bush and Cheney were starting the whole “Iran is meddling” propaganda] it really is going to be hard for the main Democratic candidates who support a “get touch” bullying approach to Iran to actually pull out most forces from the region. They couldn’t bully Iran without them.

I think it cuts to the chase about the primaries, and how important they are.

http://timesonline.typepad.com…..in-ja.html

ThingsComeUndone@#23:

“So are we going to stop being neutral on presidential candidates and start discussing their records and ACTUAL positions on issues we care the most about?
We don’t need to endorse anyone but we can say “Change your ways or we will hammer you.”

Bingo! Sounds like a plan to me. :o)

I think FDL has been great in this regard. I can’t think of a single candidate who hasn’t been criticized for some policy or vote at some time. I don’t think that anyone could stay on this site for any length of time and think that their favored candidate was a “saint”. They are humans, and influenced by the desire to win and curry favor from diverse groups of supporters.

Some will say different things…utterly contradictory things…to different groups and hope that they never get caught.

Others will triangulate.

And some will formulate policies that sound great but that actually have as much substance as a strato-cirrus cloud. When you actually get close to it you find it disappears in wispy nothingness.

But at least we are finding out these things before we commit, and realize that even after we make a judgement on who to support that we are still responsible for trying to get that candidate to shift to more reasonable ground. In other words, we have to work to make them “waffle”…to change their minds on an issue. A person who is impermeable to reason is actually a dangerous individual.

So actually I don’t mind people who change their positions, but that should be a clear public transformation with the reasons why they have shifted. Knowledge and understanding of situations DO change for people. But if they are saying one thing to one group, while saying or doing something else to another…well that’s utter hypocrisy…and pandering.

i was beginning to think i was alone. i agree with this post 1000% and i especially love act blue- they have the integrity to actually call the people who renege on their malfeasance!

i also agree that a third party is not the answer. we need to take control of THIS one and send the neocon, isreal lobby, corporatists and wannabe jesus crispies packing.

i have decided to cut down on my itunes/unbox.com addiction and match a doller to act blue, etc for every dollar i spend on entertainment.

Loo Hoo. @ 28

solai, they wouldn’t dare defeat net neutrality. How fast would they be gone?

Did you see what Comcast(?) did to MSNBC. They put it in a different tier (or something). I won’t pretend to know all the issues. Bottom line, millions of viewers just lost access to Keith Olberman.

“Free Market” indeed….