And it is an ad that is ripe to be remade with John McCain in the starring role.

The Villagers and the corporatist have always hated the Clintons because they represent the closest we’ve had to Democratic leaders who wanted to lead in the steps of FDR and JFK.

Obama is still not seen for what he is: The representative of ‘More of the Same’ D.C. governance. If he is elected you will see no major changes in the policies which the MIC and Corporation America have found ‘appropriate and good…’ for the last 60 years.

As an Edwards supporter I find your comment amusing. I, and others, were yelling last Spring that neither Obama nor Clinton were Progressives or even Liberals. To hear you say the Clintons were like FDR and JFK sounds as silly to me as all the “Obama is just like Kennedy” stuff.

In the end it appears the public just don’t know who the candidates are unless they’ve been in the news for years or received national attention by giving the Convention keynote speech.

Those of us dedicated to supporting Edwards bickered a bit over whether he was/is an authentic Progressive and sincere in all his policy plans. Something is wrong when we can’t say for certain that ANY of our leading candidates is 100% pure Democratic and perhaps Progressive.

How is it we can be more certain of who and what our candidates are? Can we ever improve the process to ensure we get what we want in a nominee?

Couple that with the fact that the overwhelming majority of that money has come from middle to poorer class people, averaging approx $85/donation, and we’re seeing a grassroots, bottom-up movement never seen before in America in terms of numbers.

Basically, we don’t need the Clintons and their fellow DLCers anymore. Perhaps we can expose them and kick them out once and for all, like their friend Traitor Joe Lieberman. I think Obama is the most Liberal candidate I’ve ever had a chance to vote for in a Presidential General Election, even though he does compromise those ideals sometimes. Certainly, it remains to be seen how much he compromises, which is true of any candidate.

Just don’t agree that we need to play to the mythical “center” anymore, especially with the VP pick, since Obama’s going to dominate with just about any Dem running mate, and VP picks are highly overrated as far as effecting the Election outcome.

We should keep the Clintons and fellow DLCers as far away as possible. We don’t need them and they’ll only work to undermine us, as they have done on the past.

OTOH, Obama started at 22 percent – and finished at 50.

Hillary didn’t so much lose as Obama just flat out won. Period.

“According to the May 1, 2008 CCC inventory report there are o­nly 24.1 million bushels of wheat in inventory, so after this sale there will be o­nly 2.7 million bushels of wheat left the entire CCC inventory,” warned Matlack. “Our concern is not that we are using the remainder of our strategic grain reserves for humanitarian relief. AAM fully supports the action and all humanitarian food relief. Our concern is that the U.S. has nothing else in our emergency food pantry. There is no cheese, no butter, no dry milk powder, no grains or anything else left in reserve. The o­nly thing left in the entire CCC inventory will be 2.7 million bushels of wheat which is about enough wheat to make ½ of a loaf of bread for each of the 300 million people in America.”
http://www.tristateobserver.co…..;sid=10121

I’m try to be a realist about what we can expect of Presidential candidates. I think we can ask a lot more of less national figures.

however edwards lost, you can’t use a failing strategy to point out that that’s not why she failed, it might be a contributing factor to why edwards failed as well

I believe there really can’t be a big doubt, hillary treated obama like he was on a differant team, had she treated him as if he were on the same team and gone after mccain she would have had a far better shot

Thanks in advance for all the good you and Mr. cbl2 provide to this community.