Please.
I ask fans of Obama why?
When pressed the subject changes. It's as if I was pressing them about their choice for a cola.

Mid september Barak was dead in the water then two things happened. The right started calling him done while giving suggestions on how to take on Hillary, and the media started putting him on magazine covers.

It was looking like a run away for Mrs. Clinton, and the media companies weren't going to let all that revenue slip away.

The media and the right wanted her to spend her money. The right so she couldn't use it in the general election, the media for the revenue.

Iowa is just a wild card game.
Mrs. Clinton is the Pats.
But that's why they play the games.

Michael Moore, got it I think.... love patty

Thursday, January 3rd, 2008
"It's the War," Says Iowa to Hillary -- And a "Happy Blue Year" To All! ...from Michael Moore

Friends,

There was no doubt about it. The message from Iowa tonight was simple, but deafening:

If you're a candidate for President, and you voted for the war, you lose. And if you voted and voted and voted for the war -- and never once showed any remorse -- you really lose.

In short, if you had something to do with keeping us in this war for four-plus years, you are not allowed to be the next president of the United States.

Over 70% of Iowan Democrats voted for candidates who either never voted for the invasion of Iraq (Obama, Richardson, Kucinich) or who have since admitted their mistake (Edwards, Biden, Dodd). I can't tell you how bad I feel for Senator Clinton tonight. I don't believe she was ever really for this war. But she did -- and continued to do -- what she thought was the politically expedient thing to eventually get elected. And she was wrong. And tonight she must go to sleep wondering what would have happened if she had voted her conscience instead of her calculator.

John Edwards was supposed to have come in third. He had been written off. He was outspent by the other front-runners six to one. But somewhere along the road he threw off the old politico hack jacket and turned into a real person, a fighter for the poor, for the uninsured, for peace. And for that, he came in a surprise second, ending up with just one less delegate than the man who was against the war from the beginning. But, as Joshua Holland of AlterNet pointed out earlier today, Edwards is still the only front-runner who will pull out all the troops and do it as quickly as possible. His speech tonight was brilliant and moving.

What an amazing night, not just for Barack Obama, but for America. I know that Senator Obama is so much more than simply the color of his skin, but all of us must acknowledge -- and celebrate -- the fact that one of the whitest states in the U.S. just voted for a black man to be our next president. Thank you, Iowa, for this historic moment. Thank you for at least letting us believe that we are better than what we often seem to be. And to have so many young people come out and vote -- and vote for Obama -- this is a proud moment. It all began with the record youth turnout in 2004 -- the ONLY age group that Kerry won -- and they came back out tonight en force. Good on every single one of you!

As the only top candidate who was anti-war before the war began, Barack Obama became the vessel through which the people of this Midwestern state were able to say loud and clear: "Bring 'Em Home!" Most pundits won't read the election this way because, well, most pundits merrily led us down the path to war. For them to call this vote tonight a repudiation of the war -- and of Senator Clinton's four years' worth of votes for it -- might require the pundit class to remind their viewers and readers that they share some culpability in starting this war. And, like Hillary, damn few of them have offered us an apology.

With all due respect to Senator Obama's victory, the most important news out of the caucus this evening was the whopping, room-busting turnout of Democrats. 239,000 people showed up to vote Democratic tonight (93% more than in '04, which was a record year), while only 115,000 showed up to vote Republican. And this is a red state! The Republican caucuses looked anemic. The looks on their faces were glum, tired. As the camera followed some of them into their caucus sites, they held their heads down or turned away, sorta like criminals on a perp walk. They know their days of power are over. They know their guy blew it. Their only hope was to vote for a man who has a direct line to heaven. Huckabee is their Hail Mary pass. But don't rule him out. He's got a sense of humor, he's downhome, and he said that if elected, he'd put me on a boat to Cuba. Hey, a free Caribbean vacation!

Bottom line: People have had it. Iowa will go blue (Happy Blue Year, Hawkeyes!). Whomever your candidate is on the Dem side, this was a good night. Get some sleep. The Republicans won't go down without a fight. Look what happened when Kerry tried to play nice. So Barack, you can talk all you want about "let's put the partisanship aside, let's all get along," but the other side has no intention of being anything but the bullies they are. Get your game face on now. And, if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates.

Despite what your answer may be, I was proud to sit in my living room tonight and see you and your family up on that stage. We became a bit better tonight, and on that I will close by saying, sweet dreams -- and on to that other totally white state of New Hampshire!

Yours,

Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

"But to make a historical career in public life, the times must seek you out.."

How true!

So does this mean you still plan to continue to be on the IAFH (Indian Americans For Hillary)Committee? Just wondering, since I didn't hear any mention of Senator Clinton in your post. Perhaps you are having a change of heart.

Cheers,

Steve

dear Deepak,
Will you be in NYC Jan. 11- 15th?
It seems the time is seeking me to seek you out
:)
love,
~ Kate

Good to see you back, Amba!

What is your take on Obama?

"I am CHANGE", says Barrack.

"Change is good" is to be the assumption.

Being unbelievably honest and trustworthy is what

Obama and Huckabee bring to the table.

Experienced? It all depends on who you ask.

Somewhere between Deepak's opinions and Michael Moore lies

the middle road to Middle America where affairs are worth the meddling.

I still say...a black man before the first lady for president.

A Baptist preacher who plays guitar(bass) can't be all bad, eh?

To attack Obama without looking racist is possible, ya think?

To attack Hillary without looking back would be dangerous.

What is percentage of Muslims in the world who have dark skin?

We will soon see fear and trepidation and more surprises.

It's way too early to make conclusions.

As a people, we are known to be impatient and narcissistic.

Caucus sounds so rough and scratchy, anyway.

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Yes, it was a moment in this campaign for Barak Obama and he should relish it because there will be many more moments...to come that will not be as uplifting for him....but I do think you are a bit carried away with what you are wanting to see and feel from this man. I understand the desperation....it has been a difficult eight years for our Nation and people are hungry...even a bit frightened for the future but I think as the campaign continues Barak Obama will be seen as the man he is, not the Political Dream Candidate many still hope for...

you write,"Everyone now agrees that Obama knows the times -- his call to turn the corner echoes JFK's four decades ago -- but it's the first quality that few have pointed out."

Excuse me, EVERYONE NOW AGREES? I do not think so. And for reminding folks of JFK...not in the least...the spirit that JFK evoked in this Nation was a source of grief for too many years for those of us who experienced it and felt it's loss for many many years after his death...but we have finally grownup and realized that life goes on, times change and we do not need JFK's replacement nor will there ever be that replacement.

You write that Commentators did the fastest flip in broadcasting history...I think not, and I think there will be many more flips to come in this campaign....Just last night watching the Democrats debate....Hillary Clinton was told she was not as well liked as Barak Obama and her response was "well, that hurts my feelings, but Barak is a very likable fellow." Barak Obama's response was, with strained, serious expression, " oh, Hillary, you are liked well enough."....and I thought was boy are you a "snotty pants."...and I thought well I wonder if anyone else caught that moment....and at the end of the debate one of the Commentators mentioned that that was Barak's lowest moment he actually came of seeming very small." I was glad the moment was caught because I realized that what was bothering me about Barak Obama was this....There is no denying his intelligence, his smartness....his decency...but he clearly does not have the Whole Package as many, and, yourself included, from your comment above think...there is much missing from Barak Obama and in time, with time, he MAY acquire what he needs to develop to be the leader everyone is so desparately longing for because and only because they and we haven't realized that the only leader that will take us where we need to go is ourselves...if we do not lead our leaders....and direct them.... to where we want to go and need to go we will never get there...Barak isn't going to take us there, Hillary isn't going to take us there nor is Edwards....unless we lead them there.... but back to what Barak is missing....EXPERIENCE...political..with a capital P...it is necessary, it is important, and just because one is incredibly intelligent and is smart and can make fantastic speaches does not mean....poopoo in the political reality of our world today....

I think I see Barak Obama a lot more clearly than you Deepak, excuse my directness....but I see a man who doesn't know himself all that much but a man who "thinks" he knows himself all that much and there is a big difference....between "what one knows" and what one "thinks they know.".....

I think Barak Obama is not the "so-called man of America's long lost dreams" I just think he is a man...who thinks he is capable of being the President of the United States of America because he knows how intelligence he is and how smart he is and he thinks that is all he needs to do the job....

Like Hillary pointed out last night....it is easy to talk change...but change comes slowly in Washington DC...and we all know why...and those why's are not going away with an election result no matter how much we wish they would....

Political muscle is important...it is something that is developed, over time, it is clear to see that Barak has none, whatsoever, even Edwards has more than Barak...

Barak will make a great leader in time...now he is just beginning to lift those weights and believe me they are going to get a lot heavier the longer this campaign goes on it will be interesting to see how he does, no?

Deepak you write,"If Barack Obama makes it all the way to the White House, it will represent a quantum leap in American consciousness and a promise to restore America's position in the world

Please, Deepak, it will do no such thing..and I think once you get off your magic carpet you will come back to earth...there will be no quatuam leaps in American consciouseness just because we elect a new President...and American's position in the world will be restored with time and with with work not with the election of one man or woman who happens to have the ability to make a speech and have the words fall from his/her tongue like little droplets of gold dust only to dissolve before they reach the floor.

Wow this campagin is starting to get interesting...

have a great day everyone, ruth

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Forgive me Deepak but this comment about Barak Obama reeks of intoxication, not the intoxication from alcohol, but from the intoxication of wishing for the saviour and getting a whiff of maybe he is the one, maybe, now, is the time...the second coming is right around the corner...

excuse me, but I need to tear apart your comment a little...you write,".) Watching cynical reporters and political commentators believe in him almost instantaneously is breathtaking" Deepak, I have been watching these same commentators for the last eight years and their belief and disbelief in any candidate is as instantaneous as their next showtime...please...get real.

also, you write,"I'd suggest that the X factor which sets Barack Obama aside as a unique candidate is his hard-won self-awareness." Self-awareness is hard-won, period, and all of the candidates have different levels of self-awareness..Barak Obama still has plenty more self to become aware of..

So, one speech and a book brings you to this conclusion...already...you write,

To make a career in public life a person must know himself and know the times. But to make a historical career in public life, the times must seek you out. That happens only rarely, and now it has happened to a junior senator from Illinois"......

this is pure intoxication talking, imho....sorry Deepak...but the junior senator from Illinois will, imho, prove to be, at the end of this campaign, and, road to this White House...simply the junior senator from Illinois who thought he could be the President of the United States by skipping the necessary grades he needed because he wanted to graduate early....

have a great day everyone, ruth...

the thought of a brilliant, articulate black man ...the opposite to the bozo we now have in white house.....becoming prez must gall some old time racists to the core! and making them have sleepless nights...

but i sayeth...bite the bullet fogeys...because Obama is the real deal!

nice article Dr. D.

You all are making me crazy (er) with all this! you need to read the book again.. "you will know them by there fruit" remember this, there is one to come, and he/she will be know by the bloodline, don't know what the hell Im talking about READ the book!

Dose Obama rise from the East? is he the lion of the tribe? No.. Don't get me wrong, he maybe be the right dude for the job, but is he the savior? No.. he is Barak Obama. It is very clear...

Aloha Deepak and Everyone

Has anyone checked out Ron Paul? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg:

love patty

it's not "barak" u should check it out before u click post! no?

Dear Deepak

All this 'hoopla' about Barak Obama reminds me of Sally Field's naive acceptance speech at the academy awards some years ago when she said "You like me!, You really, really like me!!"

Obama's victory in Iowa is more a testament to the likability of Oprah Winfrey than the man himself. A pat on the back to her that we do really, truly like her show. It is a moment when we can actually feel good about ourselves. God knows, after the last seven years of the bleakness of Bush, we NEED something to feel good about ourselves.

I have no doubt that Oprah was one of the first people Obama called after his acceptance speech to thank her for making his book a best seller and putting him on the make. Like Ruth, to me the defining moment in last night's debates was Obama's remark regarding Hillary's likability. When the veneer is stripped away, his true nature revealed. His 'Eddie Haskell factor' on full view.
[Think it was derek who aptly pointed that out earlier and very fitting]

It's still a long way to the White House. It is starting to get interesting.

A bit of frustration do I hear? SAVE IT BROTHA tell it to the hand.. We know what the name is, dont we?

Aloha Deepak and Everyone

I love how Ron Paul shares that if the second amendment was fully in place 911 wouldn't have happened:) What a trip. I remember reading The Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East, how excited they were when our constitution was created. It is exciting and how wonderful for people of color. love patty

Hey Bonnie
It was your suggestion to watch the debates with the sound off that lead me to that conclusion.
Arrogance, pride and something to hide is what I got from Mr. Obama.

I have watched more and more things with the sound off lately. Even the clip of Deepak posted just the other day. Very enlightening.

There are no saviors in this lot of candidates. Just more of the same. It is up to us to create a new kind of leader, to expect a new kind of leadership.
Like I said a couple of days ago in OT, so far nothing is new, but I'm still hopin'.
This political game has gone on for thousands of years, run by superstitious belief systems, greed, power hungry people and elitists.

Can the meek inherit the earth?
Can the people be in control of the government?
Is it just our destiny to be ruled by the powerful elite?

I don't see anything but business as usual with the top candidates and the ones who show promise can only make a difference if the media allows them.

Media
power elite
special interest groups
million dollar slander campaigns
a disconnection with the masses
an apathetic over worked and underpaid public

A new kind of leadership needs to be discussed, not wether any of these candidates are better than the others.

Turn the sound off and listen to your intuition and the common sense that lies within each of us. Don't settle for the lame choices we are given. We must create the leaders we deserve. Until then it's........round and round and round we go........

Why do we have to choose the lesser of two evils, that's BS.
Why can't we create humble, compassionate and powerful leaders?

peace comes from peace

derek

Hi Derek,
I agree - sometimes just watching without the sound on - can be interesting :)

There is still a long way to go in the campaigning process!

I agree with you Ruth, this kind of intense focus on the Democratic 'favorite' - currently Barack Obama - doesn't necessarily translate into his being elected the new President of the United States.

I happen to agree as well - when you state experience is a good prerequisite for running the Oval Office. It is hard work and takes stamina, commitment, diplomacy, etc. - and no candidate I see is a 'savior' for the U.S. Just a man or a woman who hopefully will do the best to help America forge ahead into the 21st century.

hello Bonnie,
do you have a favorite candidate you are pulling for?

love,
~ Kate

The real question for any candidate is will they be able to overcome the forces of ego. In other words will they and the people around them be able to not become corrupted, caught up or distracted by the illusions.

The successful president will be the one that will not respond to the illusions becoming entangled in them, but will be the leader to destroy the illusions.

Currently there are those who benefit and have a vested interested in the fictions taken as truth and the illusions and appearances that hide reality. When this group is overcome then happens prosperity and abundance for all. It is happening now.

When the people collectively undivided become a greater "force" then the special interests then politicians will be empowered to resist those that attempt to manipulate them. With true transparency none will be lead to temptation.

Few can comprehend what is about to happen, and the forces working behind the scenes.

The plan is unfolding perfectly; I can see the connections between that seemingly disparate, yet connected by an all pervading intelligence, The Mysterious Force.

Most entities unaware of their connection to the greater plan, the one orchestrated by the (R)evolutionary force.

As seen in Infinite Play the Movie

Remember the division, the separation, the Democrat and Republican parties are part of the illusion of separation and the game.

Your mission in this game is to find your self then awaken others of your self and destroy the illusions created by the Forces of Ego.

You will encounter a test, if you respond the illusion you fail, if you see the truth and respond accordingly you pass, and raise to the next level gaining more power.

Destroy the illusions in your own mind, and then you can destroy the illusions in the minds of others.

Only the Illusions stand between you and paradise, and the ultimate experience.

ASK the candidates who is in there circle of influence.

Remember this:

It is not just the candidate you are voting for but their circle of influence.

I still say Edwards is the more sincere candidate. And he is the only one who has:
*Put a definitive timetable for when he would get the troops out of Iraq (even if he can't keep it it shows guts to stake out the goal).
*Openly say something negative about Rupert Murdoch (that he did not want Murdoch to end up owning all the TV stations in America). NO candidate has touched the sacred Murdoch cow because they know he can limit their media exposure, which is exactly what he trying to do to Edwards:
The corporate media blackout of John Edwards gets worse
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/5/12286/27650/142/431084
*Corporations are shying away from Edwards because they know he is serious about corporate welfare reform, and closing the big loopholes in tax code for the super-rich

If Edwards can speak some truth to power, and power doesn't like it when he does, well, that energizes me a lot more than an Oprah endorsement.

But I'll probably be outscreamed by the Fans of the New Saviour with Rock Star Status.

We'll see how it shakes down. He is generating excitement, and that can make a lot politicians want to have a piece of his limelight. That may lead to him being able to push through some reform, if elected, as it might seem unpopular to vote on the other side of a tremendously popular President.

I have read good and bad things about his governing record in Illinois. Despite what he says, two years in office is not long enough to see what he's really made of.

But we'll find out now.

it's Barack all the way, baby! Eddie is of the old school! voted for the war...apologised...too litle too late... bushmen are idiots...they are ruining our future! time to boot them out of power forever!

hey Diablo,
I agree, it's long past time for BushCo to be gone!
~ Kate

The only Senator that is anything like JFK is Joe Liberman. In other words, if JFK were here today, he'd be almost Republicain.

The Democratic Governor of Maine has a picture of JFK in his office. I wish he take a hint from him and cut a tax once in awhile. But he has a Democratic majority in both houses of the Maine legislature, and the are addicted to money. Highest state gas tax in the nation, but they have to borrow to to fix state bridges and highways. They tried to tax gym memberships. There 'job program' include funding speciality foods and offering bribes to young professionals to stay in Maine. They put un used gift cards in the budget and have now fallen short because out of state companies refuse to pay, rightly so.

They've had the worst growth than any other state other than Louisianna, who had to have a city distroyed to beat them.

They float bonds every election.
The only solutions ever put forward is build a casino.
They will be bancrupted, no doubt, with in 10 years because they can't find any more money anywhere to 'play' with, because that's all they are doing, playing, like Nancy Pelolsy.

Of course, there is going to be one more source, the same one the demo canidates lied about last night: Carbon taxing
Thank you Al Gore! And there's the pay out.

When will people learn that the government is not going to solve any problems better than you can, and to give them more money just created better oppertunities for people who never get anything done.

Specific tax breaks drive solutions, not new taxes.

Taxing what's wrong is negitivity. Tax breaking whats right is a driving positive force. Capitalism and buisness are not the enemies.

Ron Paul is getting votes from everyone that takes vitamins or uses herbs etc. and values the right to use alternative complimentary medicine.

I wonder if the other canadiates would like to get these votes? Perhaps they should support the same thing. It is part of the universal platform.

A user definded approach to health.

WATCH read this link [Click My Name] called the REVOLUTION BEGINS from one of the smart doctors. Dr. Mercola

Off2set + things in motion------>

That should be user "defined" approach above.

There are those that want to limit your ability to use and access to, those things that work better without side effects and compete with drugs.

One of big deciders will be who jumps on Universal Health rather than universal health care platform.

Aloha Richard

And Mahalo for the link. The two videos I watched were great. I love how on his site he shares he feels nurses and pharmacist should have more control. It will be amazing if he lives. love patty

Hillary's strained smile and stiff body language are probably more detrimental to her ambitions and aspirations than any vote she's ever cast or any words that pass her lips.

Ron Paul: A note of caution

Ref. Richard Thomas and Patty above.

*Although he supports alternative medicine, his health care plan is full of holes. And he appeals to the Anti-Vaccination-Deniers.

*Although he supports clean energy, he believes Global Warming is not a great threat facing out civilization.(Thus appealing to the oil companies)

*He supports Guns. Gun companies rank him A+ in their book.

*He is the minority even among the Republican candidtaes who deny "Evolution".(there by appeals to the most fundamentalist Christians) None of the Democrat candidates do.

*Although he talks about equal values, he attracts some well known white supremacists, and racists. Much of his campaign money comes form that source.

Back to Obama, check the Newsweek's Cover Story

Inside Obama’s Dream Machine

An icon of hope, he won't 'kneecap' his foes. But Obama knows what it takes, and how to win.

By Richard Wolffe | NEWSWEEK
Jan 14, 2008 Issue

http://www.newsweek.com/id/84581

“If Barack Obama makes it all the way to the White House, it will represent a quantum leap in American consciousness and a promise to restore America's position in the world.” - Deepak Chopra

This is what came to my mind, as an outsider and therefore hopefully objective :):

America is ready to leave the past behind as one people and to start from scratch.

Who better to lead the people than someone with a “blank screen” as far as past politics is concerned?

Moreover he comes across as a very amiable man who inspires confidence. The Democratic Party as a whole should sincerely reflect on this and find a way in which they can support him at the moment instead of playing out their candidates against each other.

The more experienced candidates also carry the heavy weight of the past. Their role might even be better when supporting Barack Obama from their experience. I read John Edwards has already understood this :)

At present times it is, imho, the best option for America to choose a president that is not afflicted by the past and will therefore be able to take measures much more open minded and objectively.

Mieke

Excuse me, Barack. My bad.

.

Who will be willing to turn the other cheek?

.

Dear people of intentBlog:)

What type of leadership do we need?

What qualities must a leader possess to make you motivated enough to act?

What have you accomplished in the past to make you worthy to sit

in the most powerful and the most dangerous throne on earth?

How do we know you will not abuse That power?

.

This is a place where discussions take place.
Sometimes we talk about what spirituality means to us in our lives.

Forget everyone else for a minute and consider for yourself:

Can you be a team player? Have you EVER IN YOUR LIFE

followed another's teachings or walked in another's shoes?

Are you the type of person who has to argue every on point,

just for the sake of your so-called principles?

Have you EVER IN YOUR LIFE for once tried to think for yourself?

Intuitively---choose!

A true leader will make something happen inside of you.

It takes a lot of guts to follow that nudge or that urge.

Remember: A hell of a lot of voters in America are,

and will remain, mis-informed and are mostly ignorant of the facts. Me2!

The Spirit Whisperer

Bonnie and Derek,

I think it's very wise to watch our politicians' recordings without sound sometimes. A perfect oportunity to quietly observe one's own judgments and resistance to such that exists inside all of us. The people we watch are, after all, simply mirroring back at us exactly what we are.

I'd much rather elect a candidate who is both a saint and a sinner and deeply knows and accepts it, than one who is wearing the robe of his/her own immaculate perfection :)

Aloha Irvine

First I want to say Mahalo for your thoughts. I understand your concerns. love patty

Aloha Irvine

I remember hearing about a town where all the families in the town were issued a gun. The results were no more shootings. This has been said too, about rap music. The violence in African American communities when rap music came on the scene the violence decreased. love patty

Hey Aurora
All the candidates are saints and sinners, as are we all. Everyone is a mirror with their own unique reflective qualities.

One of these candidates will become our next president. Most of the focus will be on the daily, if not hourly, spin. Meaningless rhetoric used to put up a smoke screen between the mirrors.
Without the sound you see the heart.

derek

Aloha Patty, that's exactly Ron Paul's rationale:

"Right to keep and bear arms

The only 2008 presidential candidate to earn Gun Owners of America's A+ rating, Paul has authored and sponsored pro-Second Amendment legislation in Congress. He has also fought for the right of pilots to be armed.

In the first chapter of his book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense. When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant." Paul believes that a weapons ban at the federal or state level does not work either. "Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer." Rather, he sees school shootings, plane hijackings, and other such events as a result of prohibitions on self-defense. According to Paul supports the concealed carry of firearms for self defense."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

While I appreciate Ron Paul's reverence for constitutional principles, he stands about as much chance of getting nominated by a major party as the equally admirable Dennis Kucinich. Moreover, his libertarian stance on governance is just plain
impractical in the real world -- and his views on women's reproductive rights are more Papal than presidential, which is a real head-scratcher coming from a self-professed libertarian.

I like radio talker Thom Hartmann's definition of
libertarians: "Conservatives who want to smoke dope and get laid."

Hi Aurora and derek

The intellect can sometimes play tricks on us. But the heart never lies. I will toss out questions and then listen to the heart and wait for the answers. I do listen to what they have to say too, of course. :)

All I will say at this moment is that Deepak's statement "If Barack Obama makes it all the way to the White House will represent a quantum leap in American consciousness and a promise to restore America's position in the World," sounds very much like "If you will but accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour, you are promised a seat in Heaven." That puts a very heavy burden on Barack Obama and us too. That's like change that brings no change.

I will stop now.

Holocaust denying conspiracy theorist Hutton Gibson endorses Ron Paul

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cphTr8W9OnA

~

Ron Paul was an enabler of neo-nazis

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-pauls-friends-in-black-and-white.html

~

Personally, I thoroughly detest libertarianism, which is a reactionary political movement that seeks to elevate greed and selfishness as a ruling principle -- unbridled anti-social self-centeredness.

When I read the Reason magazine (available online at Reason.com) , I find a few little bits and pieces I can agree with, but because they're all imbedded in this thick tarry fecal sludge of libertarianism, I end up throwing the whole thing away in disgust.

The Ron Paul cover story in the Reason magazine is no different.

I disliked Ron Paul before I learned he was a quack, before I heard him deny evolution, before I learned he was an enabler for neo-nazis. I rejected him when I first read about his proposed policies, the ones he isn't embarrassed to make public, and see that he is promoting the garbage of isolationism, anti-government, anti-immigrant, generalized hatred of the other and a blind refusal to recognize that culture matters.

The mostly laudatory article in 'Reason' confirms my opinion:

(www.reason.com)

"…it's all classic Ron Paul: Get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing; find the money to support those dependent on Social Security and Medicare by shutting down the worldwide empire, while giving the young a path out of those programs; don't pass a draft; have a foreign policy of friendship and trade, not wars and subsidies. He attacks the drug war … one of his biggest applause lines, to my astonishment, involves getting rid of the Federal Reserve."

I approve of some of that, like ending the drive to empire and the drug war. They push this noble agenda, but then you dig a little deeper, and you find the rotting core of their reasoning:

"He wants tougher border enforcement, including a border wall; he wants to eliminate birthright citizenship; and he wants to end the public subsidies that might attract illegal immigrants."

Ron Paul isn't just a small-government obsessive: he's a no-government radical. And at the same time he wants every positive function of government to vanish, he wants what amounts to a police state in place to keep the rest of the world out, all out of fear of those strangers with different customs and ideas.

So, please, whoever you are: Please don't make me live in a Ron Paul America.

Hey Bonnie
As a visual artist I have trained myself to see the visual world without the projections. I am still learning how to see people without projections.
I am also learning to trust my heart.

derek

A timely post with interesting observations by Arianna Huffington at HuffPost:

Portrait in Cynicism: Hillary Attacks Obama from Every Angle

"Hillary Clinton has apparently decided on which lines of attack to use against Barack Obama in New Hampshire: all of them.

When it started, Clinton's poll-tested candidacy came down to telling voters, "Whatever you like, that's what I am."

But it turns out that, so far, what voters like is Obama. So now her sputtering campaign strategy has shifted to telling voters, "Whatever you don't like, that's what Obama is."

Clinton and her surrogates are attacking from every direction, hoping something will stick.

The attacks are as varied as they are contemptible. Let's take a look at the dirty laundry list. Put on your galoshes, the mud is mighty thick.

1. Obama is too liberal. HuffPost's Tom Edsall reports: "Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with 'left-wing' intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination."

Dear God, not "left-wing intellectuals"! Aren't you grateful Hillary warned us in time? The last thing voters in a Democratic primary want is someone with a "liberal voting record." Apparently, Mark Penn is still advising the campaign.

2. Obama is too conservative. In a sleazy direct mail letter sent to New Hampshire voters, Clinton tried to twist Obama's record on abortion, saying he has been "unwilling to take a stand on choice."

Really? Tell that to Planned Parenthood and NARAL, both of which have given Obama 100 percent ratings for his support of abortion rights. I asked NARAL about this mailing. "We are fortunate to have such strong pro-choice candidates like Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, running for president," Elizabeth Shipp, NARAL's political director emailed me. "We are confident that any one of these candidates would protect and defend a woman's right to choose, if elected president."

3. Obama is soft on crime. Hillary's staffers, trying to play up the "too liberal" meme, pointed out that Obama had spoken out against mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, saying: "Mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges."

How dare he! Imagine a Democrat -- an African American Democrat, at that -- expressing dissatisfaction with the injustice of a system that disproportionately impacts young people of color. It's apostasy!

What makes this dunderheaded attack especially despicable is that Hillary has taken the exact same position on mandatory minimums. During this summer's debate at Morgan State University, moderated Tavis Smiley, Hillary had this to say about what needs to be done to mitigate the disproportionate number of African American serving prison time in America: "We have to go after mandatory minimums. You know, mandatory sentences for certain violent crimes may be appropriate, but it has been too widely used. And it is [having] now a discriminatory impact." Unbelievable. The hypocrisy is flabbergasting.

4. Obama lacks depth and specificity. You knew this one was coming. "On a lot of these issues it is hard to know where he stands, and people need to ask that," said Clinton on Friday. And on Good Morning America today, she trotted out a cobweb-covered one-liner from 1984: "As famously was said years ago, 'Where's the beef?'"

Perfect. Twenty-four years ago, Walter Mondale and the Democratic establishment used that zinger and that line of attack to go after Gary Hart. Mondale ended up being the nominee and carried just one state in the general election. Is that what Hillary thinks we should sign up for again?

5. Obama is a dreamer. That's right, Clinton is actually trying to convince voters that Obama is too positive, too optimistic, too inspirational. In a speech she called him "an untested man who offers false hope," and in Saturday's debate she said, "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

Oh, yeah, that's the last thing we need, someone who actually seeks to inspire Americans to allow their reach to exceed their grasp. That's the problem with leaders like Lincoln, Kennedy, and Martin Luther King -- they just weren't realistic enough. King shouldn't have said, "I have a dream!," he should have said, "I have a realistic view of what we should settle for! We probably won't be able to pass the Civil Rights Act, but we might be able to pass a bill condemning segregated water fountains. You probably won't be able to sit at the front of the bus, but I might be able to get you to the middle."

This is who Hillary Clinton is, through and through. "I have always tried to strike a balance," she said in 2004. "I think you have to view the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be." That's a long, dispiriting way from Bobby Kennedy's "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"

6. Obama is too big a risk for America. That's right, Clinton is again taking a page from the Bush fearmongering playbook -- insinuating very bad things could happen if we don't elect her. "Look what happened in Great Britain," she said. "Tony Blair leaves, Gordon Brown comes in, the very next day, there are terrorist attacks... So you've got to be prepared on Day One with everything ready to go." It's a sequel to her husband's Roll the Dice -- which, in itself, was a sequel to the entire Bush/Cheney reelection campaign.

So the New Hampshire race is now officially too close to call, Hillary's hypocrisy running neck and neck with her cynicism. Be very afraid, indeed."

www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/portrait-in-cynicism-hil_b_80289.html

Also,

Hillary Tears Up On The Campaign Trail

Edward's knocks Clinton for getting emotional on the campaign trail:

"Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business."

Read about the original incident and watch the video below:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/07/hillary-tears-up-on-the-c_n_80254.html

The Clinton Machine. It's going to be interesting to see how far she takes this battle. So far it seems as if she's be out played, and so might not take the slash and burn approach that many know the Clintons are capable of. It will be very interesting if she just decides to quit. She would most probably get the VP, if she wanted.
Interesting also that her husband may not be the grand political stratigist that many think he is. And, unlike in Gore's campaign if he used him, he might have been a liability. Sometimes time gives one a better perspective of the why the wound, instead of just healing it. In other words, people see through his bullshit.

Makes you wonder who's bullshit we'll be seeing through 10 years from now. I doubt it's the obvious answer.

derek

Ya me too...'trusting the heart'. Some of the answers you get when doing that though are not always what you expected. Suspending projections is to me the same as suspending judgement.

bonnie

Heres what I want; ( the President stuff )

For this to be a very CLOSE race
For these folk to be respectful and kind to each other. None of the regular shit slinging, that were so used to.
For us to realize NOW that there is a divine appointment already in order. And the best possible outcome WILL BE.
More focus on peace too, like that!

There! thats all your gonna hear from me on politics, wake me after the election..
cause its pretty boring.

I Love you

Sounds good to me Tammy.
I got a headache.
Let the divine handle it, sounds good.
I have a couple good books to read.

see you all in the field beyond the right and wrong

I won't be voting for him. In my opinion, he's just not that smart. Could someone please tell me why we are supposed to be so impressed with Obama--I don't buy this bit about hard-won
self-awareness. Am I supposed to vote for him b/c Oprah said so?
To me, that is a reason not to vote for him.

Vote for Hillary.

'... Sen. Obama's speech said, "I am America,"...' ~ Deepak Chopra.

"The President will be a young male." ~ whispers in the wind sometime in 2007 and "The president is faithful." .... always, including 2007 and 2008/9

And just maybe that's Obama. I'm going to vote for the youngest male, which only leaves Obama.

Love, Char

Char, can I come back here and rub it in when Hilary wins? I'm so with you Olivia. Where are people's heads at on this one???, just read the histories of the candidates. I think people have underlying agendas and they are afraid of powerful women. I am so disappointed, I thought Deepak was above this kind of talk. His words have completely lost their lustre for me!

I think Tammy is correct.

"there is a divine appointment already in order. And the best possible outcome WILL BE."

Sure Danielle. I am curious as well who will win the presidency. However, I do think H. Clinton missed up the other day by crying in public, as I think she is falling apart and with women's hormones going up and down on a monthly basis, our country might experience the same thing if a woman gains office in the Presidency. But it appears that H. Clinton does well in the office she now holds, so I'm not really one to say a woman cannot run the country. But really....crying???? Because of this, I believe that H. Clinton will quickly loss support of the American people.

My 2 cents.

Love, Char

Thanks Deepak, this article by Robert Guttman
resonates with your message:

Yes We Can Still Vote for Real Change

Posted January 9, 2008 | 05:49 PM (EST)

Congratulations to Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain for their victories in the New Hampshire primary.

While the key word of the 2008 presidential campaign is "change", the two winners in New Hampshire are probably the least likely representatives of change running in either party.

Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign still looks back to the days of her husband's presidency. Many people feel that President Bill Clinton was a good president, likeable, and always entertaining and interesting in his views and actions. But, his presidency is over and it is time to move on and stop looking back to these supposed "glory days" of yesteryear. On reflection, with the year long impeachment trial and other matters that distracted the Clinton Administration from pressing public issues -- domestic and foreign, they were not that glorious.

Historians will not rank the two-term Clinton presidency as anything more than average. The former president is a brilliant politician but he has already had his two terms in the White House. There is no need to resurrect his presidency, as Senator Clinton appears to be alluding to in her speeches on the campaign trail.

For an election focusing on change the Clinton campaign seems to be looking back to her husband's presidency more than it should. The Clintons are fine public servants but enough is enough. Do we really want eight more years of an ongoing public soap opera? Maybe we do and the voters like this "blast from the past".

Many voters feel her campaign is more concerned with reviving and restoring the Clinton name and reputation than about looking ahead and providing needed change for the country.

While anyone running for the nation's highest office has to have a large degree of ambition, it appears to a good number of voters that Senator Clinton somehow feels that it is her right to become our next president.

Her emotional display before the New Hampshire primary was almost a sign of her disbelief that the American people did not share her view that she should be our next president. And, at the debate it seemed as if it never occurred to her that she might not be all that "likeable".

On the other hand, Senator Obama does seem to be a fresh face who really is promoting change. He is new to the national political scene and very short on foreign policy experience. Yet, if our nation is really looking for change, and is willing to throw the dice, and take a chance the Illinois senator might be what the country needs at this point in our history.

One gets the feeling that in his speeches Obama is talking about taking the country in a new direction, and conveying what is good for all Americans in order to unite our country. He would be a uniter.

Senator Clinton might feel she is an agent of change and a person who can unite America, but along with the experience she always says she has is also a lot of baggage from her past.

While Obama and even Edwards, in his shrill talks against corporate America, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson seem sincere in their remarks about changing the country for the country's sake, Senator Clinton's speeches seem more about the Clintons than about changing the country.

Exit polls from Democrats in New Hampshire indicated that Obama would be a stronger candidate against McCain, Guiliani or Huckabee.

Many voters are saying loud and clear that it is time to turn the page and change the direction of our country away from the Bush policies and to focus on the future and not get bogged down in what has happened in the past.

While the country says it wants change, the odds are 50-50 that Senator John McCain could capture the White House if he wins the GOP presidential nomination.

John McCain, a true public servant who has served his country admirably and speaks his mind even when it is not politically correct, is not an agent of change. McCain, who would be America's oldest president, and Senator Clinton, no matter what they both say, are not people who will embrace change.

They are both rooted in the past. It is good to have experience to govern effectively, but it is better to have a clear vision of what you want to do once you are in the White House.

The voters in New Hampshire obviously disagreed with my analysis so it is on to Nevada and South Carolina to see if Obama can keep his supporters fired up, and if Hillary brings out a new campaign strategy.

In this very unusual but exciting and historic presidential campaign, it is rather ironic that while polls show more than two-thirds of Americans oppose our involvement in Iraq, the GOP possible nominee John McCain is a strong supporter of our involvement in that war.

Stay tuned for the latest twists and turns in the 2008 road to the White House--they will certainly occur.

www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-guttman/yes-we-can-still-vote-for_b_80777.html

***

About the author:

Robert J. Guttman is the Director of the Center on Politics & Foreign Relations (CPFR) at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. where he co-hosts a series of conferences on politics and foreign policy with the Financial Times newspaper group.

He teaches courses on politics, the media and foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Government.

Previously, he was editor-in-chief of TransAtlantic: Europe, America & the World, at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University. As editor-in-chief of TransAtlantic Magazine, Guttman gave talks on EU-US relations to interested groups in the United States and Europe.

From 1989 to 2003, Guttman was head of publications for the European Commission office in Washington, D.C. and editor-in-chief of Europe Magazine. He is the author/editor of the book Europe in the New Century: Visions of an Emerging Superpower published in 2001.

Guttman has been an adjunct professor of political communications at The George Washington University and an adjunct professor of American politics and communications at The American University in Washington, D.C.

From 1979 to 1989 Guttman was editor-in-chief, president and publisher of a company he founded, Political Profiles, Inc. Political Profiles published the first magazine in the world on presidential candidate George Bush in 1979. The company published presidential profiles on all the major candidates for president in 1980, 1984, and 1988. In addition, Guttman wrote the Political Profiles Report, a newsletter on national and international politics featuring in-depth interviews with world leaders.

Guttman tried to capture the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate from Indiana in 1986. He has been a writer/researcher for presidential candidates in 1968, 1972 and 1976 and a communications consultant for various national political races.

Having read some of the cynical and narrow minded criticism directed at Deepak's views in this thread, I can't but point a finger at the biased, projected, sexist or race related underpinning of the rotten negative reactions dispiriting the movement of the American people taking a small step towards a critical mass of political consciousness which Deepak rightly infers from a greater-awareness-stand-point-of-view.

Just because Deepak and others think Obama is a prospective and an able leader in the current crop that's being offered, it doesn't in any way demean Hillary and her public service. The larger fight is between the forces of positive politics and that of the neocon fear tactics.

hi mr.chopra, i send you a mail.very interesting your blog. you are wonderful. i love you . thanks!!!
valeria

I love Deepak Chopra and very much appreciate all that he has done--I believe he has helped me personally a great deal--but I don't think he's right that choosing Obama over Clinton would represent a quantum leap in American consciousness. As an Illinois voter, I have been a huge fan of Obama's since he ran for the Senate. In fact I said, "He could be president." And I still believe that, but from the beginning I believed that 2008 is too early for him, and I still believe that. I believe Clinton has a better handle on the issues, and I think she would appoint a much better team at this point.