Let the word go forth from this time and place

[Len Colby]

Obama is on the right track. His statements re Reagan were accurate. Reagan made people feel good about being an American, and they voted for him even though he didn't represent their interests. Obama is trying to get people to feel good about being an American and vote for him, even though he does represent their interests.

While I'm somewhat partial to Edwards, in that he's declared war on the special interests running Washington, I think Obama has the potential to reverse the course of history, and return America to a position of respect, instead of fear.

I agree that the difference between Hillary and Obama is more style than substance my main criteria when I send in my absentee ballot will be who has a better chance of beating the GOP nominee who it seems will be McCain. I like Edwards too but his coming in third in his home state seems to put him out of the running. Thoughts it’s tempting to abstain or back a third party candidate I think two issues make it of paramount importance that a Democrat carries the day 1) Iraq and 2) the Supreme Court. Their were were numerous factors that led Bush to prevail in 2000 (which brings up the Supreme Court again) but the Nader candidacy was one of them.

[Dawn Meredith]

...

Obama isn't in the same class as JFK, for instance.

Well that's certainly true.

Of course President Kennedy said things with substance, not just style.

So far Obama has not displayed the substance.

Still, IMO Obama's speech at the 2004 Dem convention was great.

I agree with what is being said here. Yes the 04 speech was terrific, but I have not been impressed since then. I have watched every debate and the person with whom I was most impressed was Ron Paul. Sure I love Dennis K but he did not have any real vote getting machine. Paul was a breath of fresh air. His anti war speeches made even Republicans applaud. The truth has a way of hitting you in the face. Of course the Arab world dislikes us because we've been over there bombing and occupying. It has ZERO to do with our alleged "freedoms". As Paul pointed out a couple of weeks ago "Why don't they dislike Canadians?" And to listen to him discuss the economic mess we are in was breathtaking. Socially I am not for him at all, he is too libertarian about big business and the like, ie no regulation. But getting rid of IRS and replacing it with the fair tax is something I have been in agreement since reading a book on the subject. A right wing nut (Neal Boortz ) wrote the book, but it made perfect sense to me.

I think Obama is beholding to the same folks Jimmy Carter was. Trilateralists. And I agree, his speeches totally lack substance. The word "change", over and over is reminding me of how often Gore said "lockbox" in the 2000 debate.

I hope against hope that I am wrong, but like Lloyd Benson said to Danny boy in that debate "he is no Jack Kennedy". (IMHO).

Dawn

[Robert Howard]

Change, significant change, is always a tremendous struggle to bring about, the realization as you get older, at least from my vantage point, is that amidst all the myriad of views, opinions, facts and even mythos, is that America has become so culturally diversified, that the word and the achieving of consensus, at times seems to be in danger of becoming an anachronism, in the Western World this is very noticeable when looking at the "50-60 somethings" reflecting on World War 2, Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation is an example. I reading a Rolling Stone interview with the late George Harrison circa 1979, where he was speaking about how the older generation "loved to talk about World War 2,". Historically, the danger for the future is that

there are tremendous forces at work against each other, ie providing arms to what used to be called Third World Nations, now ostensibly 2nd Tier nations, with peace loving people on the other side, who are scandalized at this; yet Russia, China, the U.S. and other countries all do this. If anything is going to change, it begins with a media that does not "shut-off reality," Hence consensus becomes a dynamic that has to be "in play," if anything is going to go past the talking stage.....In many way's we are simply watching the same old situations playing out, only the technology makes it look different. Did anyone watch 60 minutes yesterday, they interviewed the person who was Saddam's interrogator, he was, in my view extremely credible and his version, [which I believe] of what Saddam said to him regarding WMD's, "why" he invaded Kuwait, why he defied Bush junior all seemed very logical in my view. The interview and its ramifications for the current admininstration, will no doubt fall by the wayside, hence my reference to the culture of idiocracy. I do not mean to sound patronizing to American's, but it is very frustrating to be led to the well ad infinitum and embrace the war ethos......To borrow a phrase, or lyric rather General's and Major's always seem so unhappy unless they've got a war going"

[Christopher Hall]

There are significant differences between HRC and Obama, but most of them arise in the area of character.

HRC's values and positions are determined by her political handlers, because she is bankrupt in the character department.

Obama's values come from his long-held beliefs, but I fear that many of his positions are similarly directed by his political consultants.

I am against most things Obama is for and for most things he is against, but he seems to have genuine beliefs which form his moral compass.

By contrast, HRC has no moral compass or core beliefs and is the classic empty suit.

I am hopeful that Ron Paul will run as an independent, because I will probably vote for him if he does.

The only Presidential race signs that I see in my city are Ron Paul signs.

At the gun show I attended yesterday, there were an abundance of Ron Paul buttons, with no buttons, signs or stickers for any other candidate.

He has an incredible grass roots following, which will survive and continue long after the election.

As for me, I hope that any new party which follows Paul or his principles is named either the Federalist Party or the Consitution Party.

[John Simkin]

I agree with what is being said here. Yes the 04 speech was terrific, but I have not been impressed since then. I have watched every debate and the person with whom I was most impressed was Ron Paul. Sure I love Dennis K but he did not have any real vote getting machine. Paul was a breath of fresh air. His anti war speeches made even Republicans applaud.

He might have the right views on Iraq but he has extreme right-wing views on other issues. For example, see my page on the John Birch Society:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm

Here is a quote from Ron Paul on the John Birch Society:"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it’s pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it."

Haroldson L. Hunt and Clint Murchison were both members of the John Birch Society. So also was John Rousselot who has been accused of being involved in the assassination of JFK.

In January 2008, James Kirchick of The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of several issues of the Ron Paul newsletter. His article concluded that Paul was an "angry white man", asserting that the newsletter showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays", attacked Martin Luther King Jr. and offered "kind words" for David Duke.

[Christopher Hall]

I agree with what is being said here. Yes the 04 speech was terrific, but I have not been impressed since then. I have watched every debate and the person with whom I was most impressed was Ron Paul. Sure I love Dennis K but he did not have any real vote getting machine. Paul was a breath of fresh air. His anti war speeches made even Republicans applaud.

He might have the right views on Iraq but he has extreme right-wing views on other issues. For example, see my page on the John Birch Society:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm

Here is a quote from Ron Paul on the John Birch Society:"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it’s pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it."

Haroldson L. Hunt and Clint Murchison were both members of the John Birch Society. So also was John Rousselot who has been accused of being involved in the assassination of JFK.

In January 2008, James Kirchick of The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of several issues of the Ron Paul newsletter. His article concluded that Paul was an "angry white man", asserting that the newsletter showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays", attacked Martin Luther King Jr. and offered "kind words" for David Duke.

John-

Are you trying to say imply Ron Paul is somehow connected to the JFK assassination?

That's what it looks like you're doing, albeit with some type of "Six Degrees of Separation" approach.

If you're not, then why include the bolded language?

I have serious policy issues with respect to Paul, but I would rather have someone whose view of the Constitution I trust (based on what I know about him) and argue over policy issues than someone who champions policies that I support but who regards the Constitution as an outdate piece of paper or, worse, a "living" document subject to any type of interpretation that a reviewing court decides.

I believe that the Constitution (as it has been amended) should be interpreted in accordance with its original intent.

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Obama isn't in the same class as JFK, for instance.

Well that's certainly true.

Of course President Kennedy said things with substance, not just style.

So far Obama has not displayed the substance.

Still, IMO Obama's speech at the 2004 Dem convention was great.

I agree with what is being said here. Yes the 04 speech was terrific, but I have not been impressed since then. ...

Same here.

His voting record has been timid and safe, standard issue politician.

But I'm not 100% certain that he's part of The Machine, whereas I am certain Billary is.

Plus, the endorsement of the Great Ted Kennedy, and Caroline... huge.

Ultimately I want to hear from my (former) candidate though on whether or not he, Kucinich, is endorsing Obama.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Myra Bronstein

[John Simkin]

I agree with what is being said here. Yes the 04 speech was terrific, but I have not been impressed since then. I have watched every debate and the person with whom I was most impressed was Ron Paul. Sure I love Dennis K but he did not have any real vote getting machine. Paul was a breath of fresh air. His anti war speeches made even Republicans applaud.

He might have the right views on Iraq but he has extreme right-wing views on other issues. For example, see my page on the John Birch Society:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm

Here is a quote from Ron Paul on the John Birch Society:"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it’s pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it."

Haroldson L. Hunt and Clint Murchison were both members of the John Birch Society. So also was John Rousselot who has been accused of being involved in the assassination of JFK.

In January 2008, James Kirchick of The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of several issues of the Ron Paul newsletter. His article concluded that Paul was an "angry white man", asserting that the newsletter showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays", attacked Martin Luther King Jr. and offered "kind words" for David Duke.

John-

Are you trying to say imply Ron Paul is somehow connected to the JFK assassination?

Not at all. All I was saying is that some members of the John Birch Society have been linked to the assassination. As far as I know Ron Paul was never a member of the JBS. However, he is on record of being a supporter of such an organization.

[Mark Stapleton]

The only Presidential race signs that I see in my city are Ron Paul signs.

At the gun show I attended yesterday, there were an abundance of Ron Paul buttons, with no buttons, signs or stickers for any other candidate.

He has an incredible grass roots following, which will survive and continue long after the election.

That's interesting indeed.

I would normally not be supportive of a Texas politician, after the damage done to public trust by the likes of LBJ and Shrub, but among Paul's grab bag of policies is one absolute gem--he wants to reform the drug laws, in particular those pertaining to cannabis.

Paul points out correctly that these laws lead to police corruption, increased crime levels, world's highest incarceration levels for non-violent 'criminals' and vast profit for crime families. And they cost the unsuspecting public a packet. In difficult economic times, it's hard to justify the massive cost of the prohibition infrastructure and the multitude of parasites it supports. Billions down the drain for a zero yield in productivity. It should hit five billion for January:

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

I can see how Paul would cultivate a 'grass roots' following. On this issue, he talks much sense--and who could call him a hippie? He could be a man of his times.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[Len Colby]

I agree with what is being said here. Yes the 04 speech was terrific, but I have not been impressed since then. I have watched every debate and the person with whom I was most impressed was Ron Paul. Sure I love Dennis K but he did not have any real vote getting machine. Paul was a breath of fresh air. His anti war speeches made even Republicans applaud.

He might have the right views on Iraq but he has extreme right-wing views on other issues. For example, see my page on the John Birch Society:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm

Here is a quote from Ron Paul on the John Birch Society:"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it’s pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it."

Haroldson L. Hunt and Clint Murchison were both members of the John Birch Society. So also was John Rousselot who has been accused of being involved in the assassination of JFK.

In January 2008, James Kirchick of The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of several issues of the Ron Paul newsletter. His article concluded that Paul was an "angry white man", asserting that the newsletter showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays", attacked Martin Luther King Jr. and offered "kind words" for David Duke.

Given his views on abortion rights, gun control, environmental protection and federal funding for social programs I find it surprising that people who consider themselves progressives would back Ron Paul he is far to the Right of all the Democrats and most Republicans on these issues. The only on abortion where he views are the same as most of the Republican candidates is he not to their Right on these issues.

His apperant ties to White Supremacist groups is distressing as well. I don't find his explanation for the racist comments in his newsletter, that they apeared without his knowledge convincing. But if it's true that he was such an idiot that he allowed a newsletter be put out in his name without bothering to read it is doubtful he has the competency to be President. He has said at times he can't remember who wrote the newsletters even though this came up only a few years after they were published. At other times he has said he doesn't want to betray the author by divulving his (or her) name, but if he (or she) wrote those things with out Paul's knowlwdge or approval he (or she) betrayed Paul's trust. These two contadictary and unconvincing explainations seem to indicate he is not being frank about the newsletters or the views they expressed.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I'm very proud of Senator Kennedy for having the wisdom to take this stand... especially from this time and place.

"We must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together."

--John F. Kennedy

Yesterday at American University Obama revealed a surprising connection between JFK and himself:

"But what I learned much later is that part of what made it possible for him [my father] to come here was an effort by the young Senator from Massachusetts at the time, John F. Kennedy, and by a grant from the Kennedy Foundation to help Kenyan students pay for travel. So it is partly because of their generosity that my father came to this country, and because he did, I stand before you today – inspired by America’s past, filled with hope for America’s future, and determined to do my part in writing our next great chapter.”

What most distinguishes Obama from Hilary, IMO, is his ability to convey a spirit of INDOMITABLE OPTIMISM. According to the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, it is impossible to make well-reasoned decisions without an optimistic outlook. Bill Clinton once had it, though not as noticeably as Ronald Reagan. FDR was before my time, but there is no doubt that he had it. In my lifetime, no political leader conveyed that spirit as JFK did, and not just to Americans, but to hundreds of millions of people around the world.

[Len Colby]

an independent, because I will probably vote for him if he does.

The only Presidential race signs that I see in my city are Ron Paul signs.

I find it quite surprising that you don’t see signs for any other candidates in Knoxville, he only about 2% of Tennessee Republicans say they will vote for him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...rimary-541.html

Even in nearby South Carolina he got less than 4% of the vote

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...rimary-233.html

.

At the gun show I attended yesterday, there were an abundance of Ron Paul buttons, with no buttons, signs or stickers for any other candidate.

He has an incredible grass roots following, which will survive and continue long after the election. .

I doubt that the gun show crowd represents a typical cross section of the American public, most of who support stricter gun control.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Len Colby

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Daniel, its not only their fault. The words progressive, radical, liberal have been watered down and given sixteen different meanings each over the last twenty years.

True all words change over time.

Not like these words, though. If the lexicon of potential opposition is constantly being scrambled an opposition can never even make it out of language.

Out current language that is used by the media to prevent mediated political discussion makes Stalin read like Al Camus.

I knew we were in deep mental styrofoam about twenty years ago ,when, one night I heard Jack Kemp get called a progressive by an organism on his evening constitutional from AEI to the McNeil Lehrer Newshour.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Christopher Hall]

an independent, because I will probably vote for him if he does.

The only Presidential race signs that I see in my city are Ron Paul signs.

I find it quite surprising that you don’t see signs for any other candidates in Knoxville, he only about 2% of Tennessee Republicans say they will vote for him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...rimary-541.html

Even in nearby South Carolina he got less than 4% of the vote

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...rimary-233.html

.

At the gun show I attended yesterday, there were an abundance of Ron Paul buttons, with no buttons, signs or stickers for any other candidate.

He has an incredible grass roots following, which will survive and continue long after the election. .

I doubt that the gun show crowd represents a typical cross section of the American public, most of who support stricter gun control.

Len-

I find it surprising to see so many Ron Paul signs, to the exclusion of any other signs for Presidential candidates, but I think that it reflects the strength of the grassroot movement which opposes business as usual in D. C.

I expect to see a few other Presidential candidates' signs as Super Tuesday approaches.

"I doubt that the gun show crowd represents a typical cross section of the American public, most of who support stricter gun control."

Gun shows do not necessarily represent a typical cross section of the American public, and I didn't imply that in my post.

Have you ever been to a gun show?

Also, what is your authority for saying that most Amercians support stricter gun control?

I haven't seen any such statistic, and I follow the issue closely.

But this is a Constitutional issue, and not a policy issue.

Ron Paul has many policy positions which are repugnant to many conservatives, as he does with respect to liberals, but I think that he, unlike most other politicians, believes in the primacy of the Constitution.

[Kathleen Collins]

This morning I voted in the Primary. Of course, I voted Democratic. The Kennedys getting behind Obama really impressed me. And even as I walked to the building where I was to vote, I couldn't let myself vote for Obama. Because voting for him is like voting for a dead man. He's in the crosshairs. So I voted for Hillary and we'll find out this evening how she did.

Kathy