compared to what we have in the white house right now, obama would be a breath of fresh air...after the air is aired out that is....when the dud moves out...

as for hillary...damn! can't stand looking at her and for her fony moment...gee whiz..gimme a break...and whats it with all the women going googoo about her? obama is the man ladies...u all will be singing a dif. tune in a few week's time when it all becomes clear...i bet yah!

No, its not the anti-woman feelings for Hillary. Or the pro-minority feelings for Obama. That would be insulting the collective intelligence of the nation.

Americans had enough of Clintons and Bushes and many are in a desperate need for real change from the old world politics. Obama embodies that hope.

If you want to elect a woman,

If that is what you want

Condi Rice is the woman.

Pelosi was a mistake.

Hillary would be a step back wards,

or as Edwards terms it...a force of the status quo.

Robert J. Guttman says it best: Yes We Can Still Vote for Real Change

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.

"The thing is Tara, my six year old daughter, wants the woman to be in the White House."
Mallika Chopra

There is a good reason why small children are not eligible to vote.

How odd for me to read your post Mallika. Only a few weeks ago I had a moment of explosion of feminine ANGER pent up since the beginning of time. I wrote a long list of all the suffering I have experienced and have seen so many women experience. And then- I released it.

And the most peculiar thing happened... I don't think I have this anger anymore. I don't have to take my decisions FOR WOMEN. Probably because inside myself, the trauma of being a victim has been released.

I think that women deciding to vote for Hillary BECAUSE she is a woman are reacting. Reactions come from one's own traumas being activated. They are not free decisions...

I envision a time when we don't even notice what gender, colour, etc. a candidate has. As long as we are still fixated on those things, we are not free of the pain.

It is very possible that this blog of yours, and your friend's letter, are such "lists" like the one I have made. Maybe you are feeling through our collective trauma and releasing it. It is very possible...

Aloha Mallika and Everyone

You know what is beautiful is Tara is expressing something that is so natural... and Why Not? Hillary has worked so hard for this. I will always remember her on Oprah when she wrote the book that it takes a village to raise a child.

love patty

I think if Hillary wins and chooses Obama as a VP, I think they need to hire Deepak as their communication advisor so he could help them stay on track...

You know I have been trying to get Deepak in the White House someway for years..either here or being in the same room when these guys and now maybe gals, are at these summits for peace!

Mallika, maybe Tara can write some letters about her grandfather!

Joanie

You know, Mallika, people do not take change lightly.

Habits, customs, religious observances, traditions, etc.,

these are all 'thangs', too, and History bears repeating. No doubt.

Can we(The Union) survive the onslaught of two cultural

arguments in one time frame, the year 2008?

As it is now...we must divide our thoughts without being torn apart.

It's a good thang, imo, that Obama is NOT a Republican.

Obama/Rice sounds fair and nice, but would it be cheating?

I completely understand Mallika in her decision to vote for Hillary, I would have done the same if I were American.
Regardless of who is winning the election, I think that it´s amazing that both a woman and a black person are so strong and popular voices in the debate.
I think it shows that a lot of Americans are more aware than I thought and I think both Hillary and Obama are good candidates, both would mean not only a better USA but also a better world.
I really hope that the era of Bush-type-presidents is over and that we one day also will se a black woman on the president post.

As a man, I'd like to take a moment to validate the point Mallika is making. Inequality exists between men and women in the world and despite the constant reminders of this inequality, Hillary represents the potential (finally) for a woman's voice in the White House. Regardless of her political views, her gender alone would be a radical change in the White House. I'm sorry your friend's mom had to experience those things in her life.

How many millions of young girls, who can't vote and don't understand or follow politics, would look up at that picture hanging in their classrooms, post offices, court rooms, etc. and feel like there was more possibility in their lives? I am personally not very interested in Hillary's political voice but the imbalance of gender (and minorities) in politics is a detriment to society.

I believe that what the president truly represents in America is a figurehead, a symbolic leader. Having a woman as the 'most powerful leader in the world' would shift the consciousness of the world one small step closer toward what we all hope for in our heart of hearts: peace, connection, balance. If you can't see this, if you can't at least understand where Mallika is coming from, then I encourage you to release your own feminine voice from it's stifled home in your psyche.

John Kerry Endorses Barack Obama

AP | January 10, 2008 09:38 AM

"Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, plans to announce his support Thursday at a rally at the College of Charleston, said a Democrat familiar with Kerry's decision.

The 2004 nominee will argue that Obama can best unite the country and has the potential to create transformational change, the person said."

Madelene wrote:

"Having a woman as the 'most powerful leader in the world' would shift the consciousness of the world one small step closer toward what we all hope for in our heart of hearts: peace, connection, balance.If you can't see this,..."

Well, Symbolically yes. But you know, there is this greater awareness which tells that divine masculine and femine is integral to all; biological male or female -- even from a science point of view studies show how many males are feminine in certain aspects and females are masculine...it is all a complex mix!

There is also this perception of Obama as feminine ..well....I think he is!

Is Hillary masculine enough to get that right "balance"? hmmm... Sue she tried to compensate with her tough talk on foreign threats, etc...

Basically, this whole gender or race thing boils down to nothing..,or NOTHINGNESS...the void

it's amazing how all the new ids get on here and immediately start acting like old times..

this Irvine Welsh dude reeks of Skeptisch...no?

Hello Mallika and Everyone,

For me the gender issue became blatantly apparent these last couple of months observing how Hillary Clinton is perceived compared to her male counterparts and the difference is astounding, imho.

Really, Barak Obama is running for President of the United States and I have yet to hear a real negative by anyone in the media or press about him. Nothing he says or does is suspect, questioned. Everything Hillary Clinton does or says is politically calculated, only for show, fraudulent, dishonest and on and on. None of this kind of attention has befallen her male contender, Barak Obama. So, the message I am getting from all of this is males are safe, good, their intentions are always better than a women's when it comes to desiring a place in the power markets of government or business. BEWARE of WOMEN.

I have nothing whatsoever against Barak Obama but I haven't bought his package, hook, line, and sinker, either. I was never a Bill or Hillary fan and it wasn't until her years as a NY Senator that I really noticed her work ethic, her commitment, her knowledge, her experience, and her steadfastness in the face of great challenges that I decided I respected her, greatly, for it. I have heard what a phony she is, what an ambitious person she is, how pushy she is and I say are not we all those same things at one or a thousand times in a year or a day? She is very human and imperfect, great, so am I.

I guess I just want her to get a fair shake in this campaign against whoever the media and press decide play up against her. It is blatantly clear because she is a Woman and has been in the "game" for as long as she has that the media and press have taken license to present her motivations as being suspect at all times and that is fine as long as her male contenders get the same treatment throughout the campaign.

and Mallika you are right the men just do not get it.

have a great day everyone, ruth

Hello again,

I just wanted to address the change issue. Everyone says with Hillary there will be no change, she is the same ole, same ole. Barak Obama will bring change and they say it, not like it might be a possibility but they say it like it is already a "done deal." He said it. By golly, it's done. Just place your vote for Obama and bingo we have change....Really, it boggles my mind.

I ask eveyone out there, seriously, exactly what do you think will be changed by Barak Obama, say in his first term? Too soon, okay...second. Exactly what big changes will he accomplish wil be done deals that you can take to your bank and deposit. You know the saying, "show me the money" well I ask all you folks who beieve Barak Obama will bring change to..."list me the changes" he has promised and that can in fact be done deals.

We know he can inspire but you can't eat and pay your bills and fill your gas tanks or go to the doctor and hospital on inspiration and I get plenty of inspiration on my own, I do not need my President to inspire me.

So all I ask is challenge the motivations of Barak Obama the same way you do Hillary Clinton's.

have a great day everyone, ruth

Hi Mallika,
I am glad you are bringing up these questions, which I am sure are questions a lot of us are dealing with now. And maybe women especially.
I was all for Hillary and really excited about the opportunity to have a female president! However watching her in this race has been quite disappointing. Does she really have the leadership and greatness it takes to lead this country? So far I am not convinced. What most unsettles me is how she deals with her opponents which are in a way also her team mates (and men!). She is making them wrong and claims that she is the only one who is 'right'. If you look for wrong you'll get more wrong and if you look for enemies that's what you will find. How is she going to deal with all the other people out there in the world who don't like us, attack them, too?
I like what Deepak Chropra wrote about Barack Obama and how he knows himself. That's what makes a truly great leader. I think Hillary still has a long way to go and she better gets there fast because I really want a reason to vote for her!
BTW this is my first post on this blog and hello to everyone :)

Okay, I'm sorry, but..

I just thought of that question in the debate about the "likeability factor," you know if the panel had all been MALE it would NEVER have been an issue or a question. Frankly, I found it to be an embarrassing question and I wasn't even asked.
The whole question of likeability is a very vulnerable issue for women especially when it is a woman is being compared to a male.

Women are supposed to be liked, especially, when they are compared to males and if you are a WOMAN who is not as well liked as a male then, of course, there is something wrong with you. Real WOMEN are always liked better than males, they are supposed to be liked better.

The question really bothered me, and must say I think Hillary did a fantastic job in answering it, dealing with it..me, I would have blown it completely....I would have gone billistic..What like? Peope like him better? He is more LIKEABLE! What am I running for the Presidency of the United States Of America...Superpower Heaven or the -ucking First Grade. Give me another -ucking question...one for a grownup!

anyway I hope I am done for the day because I am tired and I have laundry to do! ruth

Ruth wrote:
"So all I ask is challenge the motivations of Barak Obama the same way you do Hillary Clinton's."

Obama didn't play dirty tactics of attacking his opponent unfairly like Bill Clinton did by twisting his vote records on war and abortion and his "fairy tale" comment, etc.... Obama did not get angry(masculine equivalent of tears) when he sensed that some voters ditched him. Hillary played the Cheney Rove tricks of fear politics about an attack by al queda on "day one" if they elect Obama.

Is Obama ready enough? I think he is...many do. If there is a a real risk in his ability that wouldn't explain his endorsement by many who know more about politics than a layman does. OYu know like John Kerry.

"....Aside from those two practical components, Kerry's support for Obama could have powerful symbolic weight as well. One of the central questions still surrounding Obama is whether he is up to the job of president, whether he carries the requisite experience after just a few years in the Senate to serve as commander in chief. Kerry, a decorated military man and experienced hand in foreign affairs, can help to validate that Obama is indeed up to the challenge."

"Rank and file Democrats view [Kerry] favorably and see him as a serious person," said one source close to the Massachusetts senator. "If he says Obama is 'ready' it will reassure many who were unsure."

"Obama needs to show donors, voters and activists that he can attract more traditional support and win over the decision-makers in the party.

Thus far, he has succeeded mostly at bringing young voters and independents into the fold."

John Edwards:

“Our country and our Party are stronger because of John’s service, and I respect his decision. When we were running against each other and on the same ticket, John and I agreed on many issues. I continue to believe that this election is about the future, not the past," Edwards said in a statement. "

blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/kerrys_endorses_obama_what_doe.html

Point is both are ready. But Obama and Hillary differ on their stance on important issues. Obama Obama can reach out to a wider voters. He is a movement, one that can beat the republican candidate(rest assured it will be a tough fight) and bring some real change in how things work in Washington.

the granny is spinning in a tizzy at the thought of a brilliant... well spoken black gentleman becoming her prez...and he will be prez...even john kerry now endorses him...damn! barack is the opposite to the dud we now call prez...yikes!

1. when barack becomes prez, the soldiers will come home.

2. we'll stop leaking our future bank account to iraq.

3. we'll regain respect in the world and not be hated so much by everyone.

4. we'll learn to be proud of our great country again.

5. and barack will appoint billary as US ambassador too iraq. damn!

Mallika,

You summed it all up perfectly.
When I look at Hillary, it is clear to me how much strength she has.
To me, it is not even different strength than male strength--rather she is simply the strongest candidate. It is easy for a person to be strong when they are being pampered and experiencing
"hero-worship", like Obama clearly is. Hillary has real integrity and has had to put up with so much in her lifetime and yet she stands strong. She will be getting my vote.

Hillary would be a change for the better but
most all of the candidates are talking change
from what we've had.And all change is not necessarily
good.Change to what?

But only one candidate is talking about unity
and not just for americans but for the entire
planet.It is an audacious goal of course in
the face of the global political reality but
Obama is up to the task.Are we?

Congrats Diablo, you have found your saviour!

Cheers,

Amber

hello Mallik and Everyone,

It is funny when I hear the men say Obama is the candidate of change, of hope, he inspires, and really, I think after all we have been through these last eight years the last thing I am voting for is hope or inspiriation, and change, well, I have been around too long to think change is gonna happen like the door opening wide on the day the new President takes Office and it just marches right in and makes itself at home. I know that if anything changes it will be after a looong drawn out battle with the forces that be, the forces that really rule our system...the money handlers, the corporate interests, the lobbyists, they are alive and well and just waiting for the next guy or gail to move in.

As far as looking for a leader that offers hope and inspiraion, well, I got all the hope I need right in my back pocket and all the inspiration I need in my other back pocket thank you very much.
I have come to the conclusion when it comes to politics there are ONLY Politicians and once in awhile they are able to act like they are actually leading us, even saying something or acting in a way that is inspiring to us and or the world community, but mostly they are your run of the mill politically ambitious polished Politician.

Even the spirit and hope that helped bring JFK to the White House fizzled once he took office, it always fizzles because the reality of the struggle between the opposing interests takes up so much time and energy that it is impossible to hold to it, it was just that his murder brought such hopelessness to everyone for so long that we forget.

So, my take is this....I am voting for the one who knows how to keep in the fight...stay on their feet...knows the importance of being able to play the game and play it well because it is a game with very high stakes, with a complexity that is getting more overwhelming each and everyday and who has proven their worth through years of hard work.

We are facing difficult times and looking at the resumes before me...one is experienced the other needs on the job training...I can't afford to train someone right now..my finances and resources are kind of strapped for cash..so I am going for the one who can start working for my interests(the United States Of America) on day one, HRC.

have a great evening everyone, ruth

Ruth wrote:

"We are facing difficult times and looking at the resumes before me...one is experienced the other needs on the job training...I can't afford to train someone right now..my finances and resources are kind of strapped for cash..so I am going for the one who can start working for my interests(the United States Of America) on day one, HRC."

I don't know how American people can still buy into the 'being president' on "Day One" propaganda. This woks, it is a leaf out of Karl Rove's book. Yeah...she was in the whitehouse for 8 years....great resume! ...let's elect McCain, I am telling you...he will beat her fair and square...

There is no dearth of old cynics in the real world but this will change, and change will be real...

Hillary suggesting, like the UK which had terror attacks when a new PM was elected, beware of Obama, he is inexperienced, he is a risk! "al qaeda is watching the US elections closely"...too bad this propaganda can be sold to the Republican voters not so much to those who disprove of Bush and Hillary on Iraq.

Ambasteve wrote:
"Congrats Diablo, you have found your saviour!"

I am sorry your saviour has to step down soon to allow someone else to clean up his mess. Hoping he doesn't create another mess with Iran.

I think there is no one who could unite Republicans as well as Hillary. Obama, with his clean history and unifying message could be a much more difficult candidate to beat in November.

Unity Aint what it seems to be, a cut and paste from Dennis Prager, warning: This is meant for mature audiences only:

We are repeatedly told by the news media that there is a deep, almost palpable, yearning among Americans for unity. And Sen. Barack Obama's repeated and eloquent claims to being able to unite Americans are a major reason for his present, and very possibly eventual, success in his quest for his party's nomination for president of the United States.

I do not doubt Mr. Obama's sincerity. The wish that all people be united is an elemental human desire. But there are two major problems with it. First, it is not truly honest. Second, it is childish.

First is its dishonesty. Virtually all calls for unity -- whether national, international or religious (as in calls for Christian unity) -- do not tell the whole truth.

If those who call for unity told the whole truth, this is what they would say: "I want everyone to unite -- behind my values. I want everyone who disagrees with me to change the way they think so that we can all be united. I myself have no plans to change my positions on any important issues in order to achieve this unity. So in order to achieve it, I assume that all of you who differ with me will change your views and values and embrace mine."

Take any important issue that divides Americans and explain exactly how unity can be achieved without one of the two sides giving up its values and embracing the other side's values.

Barack Obama wants American troops out of Iraq now. About half of America believes that American troops abandoning Iraq will lead to making that country the world's center of terror and to the greatest victory thus far for the greatest organized evil in the world today. How, then, will Mr. Obama achieve unity on Iraq?

Mr. Obama believes in repealing the tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration. How will he achieve unity on that? Many of us believe that re-raising taxes will bring on a recession.

And what is the "unity" position on same-sex marriage? Either one supports it or one supports keeping marriage defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. The only way to unite Americans on this issue -- and I don't know what is more seminal to civilization than its definition of marriage -- is to convince all, or at least most, Americans to embrace one of the two positions.

It is fascinating how little introspection Sen. Obama's "unity" supporters engage in -- they are usually the very people who most forcefully advocate multiculturalism, who scoff at the idea of an American melting pot and who oppose something as basic to American unity as declaring English the country's national language.

Their advocacy of multiculturalism and opposition to declaring English the national language are proof that the calls of the left-wing supporters of Barack Obama for American unity are one or more of three things: 1. A call for all Americans to agree with them and become fellow leftists. 2. A nice-sounding cover for their left-wing policies. 3. A way to further their demonizing of the Bush administration as "divisive."

In case the reader should dismiss these observations about calls for unity as political partisanship, let me make clear that they are equally applicable to calls for religious unity. For example, one regularly hears calls by many Christians for Christian unity. But how exactly will this be achieved? Will Catholics stop believing in their catechism and embrace Protestant theology, or will Protestants begin to regard the pope Christ's vicar on earth?

Ironically, one reason America became the freest country in the world was thanks to its being founded by disunited Christians -- all those Protestant denominations had to figure out a way to live together and make a nation.

Given what Sen. Obama's calls for unity really mean -- let's all go left -- it is no wonder he and his calls for unity are enthusiastically embraced by the liberal media.

For nearly eight years the media and Democrats have labeled President Bush's policies "divisive" simply because they don't agree with them. They are not one whit more divisive than Sen. Obama's positions. A question for Democrats, the media and other Obama supporters: How exactly are Mr. Obama's left-wing political positions any less "divisive" than President Bush's right-wing positions?

Second, the craving for unity is frequently childish. As we mature we understand that decent people will differ politically and theologically. The mature yearn for unity only on a handful of fundamental values, such as: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Beyond such basics, we yearn for civil discourse and tolerance, not unity.

The next time Sen. Obama speaks with his usual passion and eloquence about his desire to unite Americans, someone must ask him two questions: Why are your left-wing positions any less divisive than President Bush's right-wing positions? And if you are so committed to uniting Americans, why did you vote against declaring English our national, i.e., our unifying, language? Without compelling answers, Sen. Obama's calls for American unity are no more than calls to unite around his politics and him.

you have a lot of depth, Irvine
:)

Hi Mallika,
women do get it.
:)
~ Kate

Listen to why Ned Lamont supports Barack Obama. I believe he is not naive like the old cynics paint the Obama supporters, right?:

Why I'm Supporting Barack Obama

When I decided to run for Senate, I did so because I deeply believed that the citizens of Connecticut were yearning to see fundamental changes in our politics - changes that would make government work for them again.

Today, with our Presidential primary in Connecticut less than a month away, I am announcing my support of Barack Obama for President because I am convinced that his forward-looking, progressive vision provides the best chance to enact meaningful reforms in the way Washington works.

Sen. Obama has the tone and temperament to bring out the best in our people and our nation, and to bring new coalitions together in support of the progressive policies we all want to see enacted. His campaign has already reflected this, not only by bringing hundreds of thousands of new voters of all ages to the polls, but by inspiring so many who are new to politics to become activists as well.

Making healthcare affordable for all Americans, rebuilding our aging infrastructure, and ending our dependence on foreign oil are all problems that require more than a tax credit here or an earmark there. Barack is the candidate best able to enact these big changes necessary to getting our country moving again.

We have seen that Sen. Obama has the wisdom and judgment to get the big decisions right - as he did on Iraq more than five years ago. And when President Obama steps out of Air Force One in countries around the world, he will represent a fresh start with friends and allies. He will end the war in Iraq, work for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, and start investing in America again - and we will be safer and stronger for it.

We Democrats are fortunate to have had many strong candidates running for President. As you may know, I was proud to work hard for Chris Dodd during his campaign. I have the deepest respect and admiration for Sen. Dodd - especially for his powerful calls to defend our constitutional freedoms by restoring habeas corpus, closing Guantanamo, and living up to the spirit of the Geneva Conventions. I know that Sen. Obama, a former professor of Constitutional Law, has been and will continue to be Chris' ally in fighting to protect our Constitution.

As Barack often says on the campaign trail these days, "with the challenges we face at this moment, the real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result."

It's time to change the game. [barackobama.com]

---

Ned Lamont was the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Connecticut in 2006.

He founded his own company, Lamont Digital Systems, in 1984, and is a graduate of both Harvard and the Yale School of Management. He spent eight years in local government, chaired the state investment advisory council, and worked on policy with the Brookings Institution.

Ned was a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics in Spring 2007 and is currently a board member at the Progressive States Network.

I can definitely understand Mallika's post.

And as far as the idea that voting on the basis of those ideas is reactionary, I'll say this:

The slaves would never be free if somebody didn't get reactionary. Women would not have the vote if someone did not get reactionary. We wouldn't have things like a 40-hour workweek, paid time off, and sick leave if some reactionaries didn't stand up and fight, and in many cases, give their lives for it.

Heck, we would still be part of Britain if some reactionaries had not taken some pretty radical action.

So there's a place for reactionary tactics, and in a sense all battles for peace and equality are "reactionary" to the fact that you don't have these things to begin with.

So I say: "Mrs. Clinton, tear down that Wall!"

On the other hand, electing a black president is much the same thing, and you can't blame blacks for pushing through another milestone even while we still have blights like the Jena 6 case in the 21st century.

Some Indian husbands and redneck Americans will still beat their wives even if there's a woman President, and there will still be white supremacists even if there's a black President.

But the value of dissolving the race and gender barriers on who can be President is not simply symbolic.

You want change? Just having either a woman or black President is itself, and of itself, tremendous change for America.

What if they win by sharing the ticket?

Imagine a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket to the White House.

Although politically, I prefer Clinton (that's another whole essay), I think the smartest thing either one of them could do is turn around and ask the other to share the ticket with them.

Who could beat an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket?

John McCain? Are you kidding me?

In her article "Seeing Sexism" Erica Jong concludes; If this is the politics of gender, so be it. We need a politics of gender in this country. Obama is a good man who will only get better. Youth is on his side. Perhaps Hillary will appoint him to the Supreme Court where he can counter that embarrassing Clarence Thomas. Perhaps he will be President in 2016 or perhaps, even better, Michelle Obama will be. They have nothing but time.

Hillary's time has come.

http://tinyurl.com/2dnnt9

******

Here are two comments to her views:

Sexism is making voting for Hillary because she is a woman and one thinks this is how to win the white house for women. Wrong. People who are betting on Hillary's experience are actually holding on to the days of Clinton old (you know, that guy who spends his days plays golf with Bush Sr?) I say this as a woman who has never considered her position as someone with a budding career in the sciences as a token.

Both Obama and Hillary have characteristics which are novel in a real Presidential Candidate. Obama is the first non-Caucasian to having a real shot because he exudes not only inspiration but a sense of integrity and honesty that appeals to people who are tuned into those traits and see them as desirable in a leader.

Clinton's experience has already detracted from that sheen. America hasn't ever had a female leader because of the personality of the country is often reflected in its chosen leader. America has traditionally been seen as an aggressive, domineering, and militarily focused country - not characteristics that are often exuded by women. Countries that are growing and seeking compromise are often quite comfortable having a woman in charge as she is usually better able to negotiate deals and organize what needs to be done to ensure every reaches their potential.

Can either Obama and Clinton run without it being very much noted that they are the first to represent a certain group that has never seen the light of the white house thrown? Unlikely - and we shouldn't be hypocritical about it. But it would be foolhardy to elect either because of race or gender rather then who would be better able to put America back together again after it fell off the wall.

----

"It's Hillary's time" simply because by some nebulous social clock "it's time to elect a woman president." Are we then to assume by this same social clock that in say 2024, it will be "time to elect an Asian president"? Who sets this social clock?

To suggest that because other European countries have had women leaders, it's somehow now time for America to "join the fad" with no attention to the quality of the woman leadership you're choosing is extremely insulting to the intelligence of women IMHO. Why not compare their resumes to Hillary Clinton's? You'll find HRC's sorely lacking and successful women leaders don't count their time as First Lady as "experience" to run a nation! You wouldn't trust your life to the non-pilot wife of a pilot who says "I know what I'm doing. I've flown with my husband many times", so why the presidency? And then using this whole "who's suffered more" as a basis to further justify yourself - by your broken formula, a black woman president should be a higher priority.

And truth be told, Dr. Condoleeza Rice is FAR more experienced and qualified to be president of this nation than the entire remaining Democratic field, so why haven't I seen your ilk championing her running?

It's not about a woman president, it's about WHICH woman, as it would similarly be the case of WHICH White/Black/Asian man, etc. And for many, Hillary Clinton is NOT the woman that folks want to see president.

I'm kinda proud of myself.
The other day while watching the dem debate I became aware of the fact that the woman thing and the black thing never enters my mind unless somebody else brings it up.
Guess I'm ahead of my time.

I'm not against Hillary being President because she's a woman. It's because she's a Clinton. I'm simply not a socialist.

As for my side (these years), I wish Condi Rice was running. Now there's a smart cookie!

Bobby Jindal '12!

I can understand the gender thing and how emotionally hurt women can feel. But, we must remember what we are voting for. Are we voting to turn the country around? who would be a better leader for that? What types of qualities are we looking for to lead in the best possible way?

About the "likeable" comment, I didn't think Obama meant it to be demeaning. I thought it was a sweet comment, and I think he meant it.

Dear Yogi One

It's true, explosive reaction has its role. If women are opressed, then women need to let themselves feel their pain down to the core and tear down the walls with their anger. If black people are opressed, they need to feel that pain too, and rise to action. But I'm speaking of inner walls and inner action.

It would also be good to realize that this entire election is about how many people resonate with which wounds, and not about conscious choices.

If we were free to choose and were not just reacting to our wounds, we may prefer to not have a race between opressed women seeking fulfillment and opressed black people doing the same thing. Maybe if our personal wounds were healed we would see to it that BOTH women and black people, and young/old people and men and everyone else could have a good president. But such a president, of course, would have to have healed his/her wounds first, and truly stand for the good of all.

I do think it would be great if as many people as possible would use this opportunity to identify their emotional wounds and heal them, instead of reacting. We do want to leave behind this world of victims and abusers, don't we?

Snow fell for the First time in man's memory in Baghdad today.

Snow is very Peaceful.

I think that is a sign... I know I asked for one.

as for the election the infinite mind knows what is best for our evolution and that is what will happen..

These are the words that should come from the presidential candidate that would be elected.

“If we didn’t have the cost burden of fear and conflict, we would all be living in paradise.”
~From a scene in Infinite Play the Movie

This knowing needs to be delivered to everyone on the planet.

These are the words that could come from the presidential candidate that would be elected.

So if you want Hillary to win tell her to speak these words.

Tell her to speak of Universal Health, the end of disease, not Universal Health Care with disease conditions as a normality.

I suppose I might be delivering some documents to each of the campaigns to empower them, my hope is they will collectively deliver, the notion exists in my mind, now it only needs the impulse to come, it doesn't matter who so as much that someone executes the plan and delivers the wisdom and intelligence.

Looks like quite unexpectedly, I will be having dinner privately with one of the presidential candidates tomorrow, odd how this stuff happens.

The "Cause for Change".

Presents it’s self, flawlessly.

Eliminate the fear in the minds of those that would vote against you, and confirm the benefits to those that would vote for you.

Whosoever shall speak and convey the wisdom and intelligence presented will be the next president.

I can assure you there is a mysterious force at work behind the scenes.

The Anonymous One.

To China we would say, these are the standards you will meet and the commitment to a quality and preservation of life you shall endeavor to achieve if you want to do business with us. In nature the worker ants and bees are never forced, they are nurtured.

Speak not to the leaders of the other nations but directly to the people of those nations, address them personally, they will be the cause bringing change to their leaders.

It should be the intention of the president to bring prosperity and abundance to not only the people of the United States but to all members of the planet and their leader should voice this. This is the statement of intention, from the citizens of any Peaceful Nation.

When no members of any nation, country or region are left wanting for the essentials and everyone has a voice that is heard, and every issue is addressed and given attention, there will Peace on this planet and all conflict will be resolved quickly with both parties deriving benefit from the resolution.

All industries, professions, and systems should be reviewed, redesigned, configured and upgraded from a holistic perspective taking advantage of the Internet. This should be done via public open Socratic dialog, where the best of all minds meet taking advantage of collective wisdom, knowing and intelligence. They should not be built not on fictions, or need the favor of ignorance, but prosper and profit by embracing intelligence and wisdom.

Corrected.

They should be built not on fictions, or need the favor of ignorance, but prosper and profit by embracing wisdom and intelligence.

I support all the candidates for election for in each of them is My Self. When the time comes the vote of the One will be for the one that best articulates intelligence and wisdom and delivers it to the people.

and you know who I AM.

The Infinite @ Play.

"The trick in any choice is not responding to the illusion but to the reality behind it."
~scene from Infinite Play the movie.

Here's the Obama quote from the debate where the apparant put down happened. Click my name.

I don't think it was a put down.
He was being sweet.

As a woman I would be happy with either Hillary or Obama, but remember 40-50% of the people in this country voted for BUSH! Right wingers wouldn't have been able to lie, cheat & steal an election without the help of the american public. Bush has been president for 8 extremely long and treacherous years and has not been impeached. How many of these right wing christian sheep will actually vote for a woman or a non-white male? I hope I am wrong and that they have learned.

As a woman I would be happy with either Hillary or Obama, but remember 40-50% of the people in this country voted for BUSH! Right wingers wouldn't have been able to lie, cheat & steal an election without the help of the american public. Bush has been president for 8 extremely long and treacherous years and has not been impeached. How many of these right wing christian sheep will actually vote for a woman or a non-white male? I hope I am wrong and that they have learned.

"The thing is Tara, my six year old daughter, wants the woman to be in the White House.

The men - they just don't get it."

Brilliant, Mallika you said it. I only hope grown up women do not have the mind of a 6 year old.

The questions and responses these past few days about a possible perceived gender double standard in race reminds me of the discussion arising out of the Hillary vote in New Hampshire.

Judith Warner of the New York Times wrote an interesting opinion piece:

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/

which is summed up nicely in the following paragraph:

"I don't for a moment begrudge Hillary her victory on Tuesday. But if victory came for the reasons we've been led to believe – because women voters ultimately saw in her, exhausted and near defeat, a countenance that mirrored their own – then I hate what that victory says about the state of their lives and the nature of the emotions they carry forward into this race. I hate the thought that women feel beaten down, backed into a corner, overwhelmed and near to breaking point, as Hillary appeared to be in the debate Saturday night. And I hate even more that they've got to see a strong, smart and savvy woman cut down to size before they can embrace her as one of their own."

I mean "in *the* (Presidential)race..."

I mean in "in *the* (Presidential)race..."

Aurora,

I'm on board with your response. If we lived in a world where people prioritized self-healing and the resolution of their own emotional issues, it would not even be necessary for blacks and women to fight for human rights.

The whole idea that gender or color should be an issue in the election shows some of the problems we have today.

As for women being associated with peace, femininity, social equality, etc, while I admit that is the overall stereotype, I have definitely seen women who can ratchet up the rhetoric and kick butt with best of them.

I give you Margaret Thatcher as evidence for that. And in fact, I like it that Hillary can show determination and political muscle when needed. If elected, she is going to have to deal with people like Putin, the Sheiks of Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries, and so on. It wouldn't bother me a bit if she lets them know she's a heavy hitter. They respect that and will take her more seriously for it.

I agree with what you said on a personal level, but in the public sphere, historically, change has been brought about by determined groups of people taking political action and facing consequences from the status quo that sometimes turned very ugly. For example civil rights workers in the US South during the 1950s and 1960s, and the early union leaders who stood up to the culture of Robber Barons in the early 20th century.

And of course the women who protested and fought seemingly hopeless legal battles so that you can go vote for whomever you choose nowadays.

Their courage is what brought us many of the rights we use in our everyday lives. They were thinking of people who weren't born yet, looking beyond the immediate survival needs of themselves, and laying it on the line for people they would never know.

In that context, I can understand a person voting for Hillary because she is a woman, or Obama because he is black.

But that is only necessary to break the barrier. After the first time, it is really not valid.

Even the first time, it should be a back seat consideration. A person's votes should be based on what kinds of merits the candidate has that will help our country, not race or gender.

Judith Warner of NT Times (Ref. John's post above) I think made a good point in saying that many women didn't relate to her until that (a bit of a "poor me") moment, or until there was a 'piling on' by the guys. (And there really was a real piling on. I was watching Chris Matthews and I thought then that he had crossed the line.)

I've wondered if he had been 'out of line' in a comparable way, and I hadn't noticed. I honestly don't know. The glee with which he gloated over the 'Clinton demise' really stunning though.

I didn't think of it as chauvinistic, but I can see now, in retrospect, how some women might have.

Now for me, none of that stuff would have changed my vote.

But from the testimony of many women, it did change theirs.

I'm concerned that this election will become a big 'trigger point' of gender and race issues - where people will be coming face to face with 'closeted issues' all over the place.

Hillary said she's found 'her new voice' (IOW, has found it will be advantageous to be 'open' and 'vulnerable').

Now she's going to be 'authentic'.

But becoming open and vulnerable and authentic as a campaign stragegy??

Ugh.

Vanessa

yogi, damn!

Hey everyone, you simply *must* watch this:

23/6: Primary Coverage with Eugene Mirman
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIVMiYI4aPs

This guy Eugene has it down (hahaha)!

"I'm here at the Hillary Clinton events, and she has found a way to RUIN country music!"

Now why can't CNN get it together to show some good reporting like this?

Hello Everyone,

I was just reading comment #46 where it is quoting Judith Warner from the nyTimes about Hillary's victory in NH being because women saw themselves reflected in her moment of vulnerability and exhaustion. I beg to point out that all the analysis of the reasons for the victories come from the press and media NOT the VOTERS. Please keep that in mind.

It was brought to the attenion of some who cared to know...a real truth about all of this victory stuff.. was that Hillary Clinton was exactly 3 or 4 percent ahead of Barak Obama for months in the polls in NH, really, she had been ahead by just the amount of votes that brought about this victory.. and her so-called "breakdown" only happened.. what.. the day before or day of? So, the press and media analysis is as dead wrong as their rush to bury the Clinton campaign alive.

have a great day everyone,ruth

"It was brought to the attenion of some who cared to know...a real truth about all of this victory stuff.. was that Hillary Clinton was exactly 3 or 4 percent ahead of Barak Obama for months in the polls in NH, really, she had been ahead by just the amount of votes that brought about this victory.."

True, but check the polls for breakdown among men, women, independent and democrat voters before you make that ridiculous argument.

Excuse me?

Ridiculous? She was ahead by 3 to 4 percent for months before the day of the NH primary, and she won by what percent? big, big surprise turnout.

Just for your information most women probably didn't even take notice of her "moment" of vulnerability because as WOMEN, DEAR JOHN, we have them all the time...soooooo...the only people who zeroed in on the moment to begin with was the press and media because THEY are the only only ones who had an investment in playing it up..on every single...show...and clip...even John Stewart of the Daily Show...made fun of he press and media for playing up this very none event.

have a great day all, ruth

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby New Hampshire Tracking Poll:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1417

Nothing can explain a 15% decline in a day other than the Bradley Effect or/and the Hillary Moment (and things like Clinton racial baiting, and feminist moments like "Iron My Shirt" incidents, etc that led to it.)

"Ridiculous? She was ahead by 3 to 4 percent for months before the day of the NH primary, and she won by what percent? big, big surprise turnout."

RIDICULOUS.

I said Check the PERCENTAGE of women votes which swayed big time as against what the polls predicted. And opinion polls don't change overnight with out the influence of an Incident like Hillary Moment or due to Bradley Effect because race was also involved here.

What an energized thread! Mallika hit a home run. IB Election Central!

Here's something for the people who have noticed that no one scratches under the hood with Obama because the polishing job is so shiny. Go to this site, they have the problems with Obama. Warning: they are gung-ho pro-Hillary, so it is a totally biased site, but just the same there are factual tidbits about Obama you need to know that his campaign won't tell you. Copy and paste these into a webbrowser:

No Quarter blog posts on Obama:

Obama's ties to drug industry and other lobbyists:
noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/11/obamas-registered-lobbyist-bundlers/

"Public Citizen (WhiteHouseForSale.or) lists nine of Sen. Obama’s fundraising bundlers as registered lobbyists who have collected in the neighborhood of $1.5 million for his campaign—in addition to their own personal contributions."

and

Stephen Weissman of the nonpartisan think tank Campaign Finance Institute said Obama “gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different … But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists,” Morain wrote.

Next: Obama campaigns as being staunchly opposed to the Iraq war. Well, he sort of is... Turns out he is against the war when he's not voting FOR the war. I know most of you have never seen this information:

noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/11/where-was-obama/#more-1300

"In 2006 he voted against a Senate resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops and has also voted to continue funding the war."

In this post is more info concerning Obamas ties to the drug, credit-card, and nuclear industries;

Obama, His Lobbyists, and his Cronies
noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/11/obama-his-lobbyists-and-his-cronies/

This post also mentions Obama's carreer-long ties tobusinessman Tony Rezko, who goes on trial February 25th for “extortion and fraud charges, which include shakedown allegations involving an Illinois pension fund.”

Turns out Mr Rezko helped Obama buy a house for hundreds of thousands of dollars below the market rate, then purchased the property next door so they could be neighbors.

I really want to caution people to step back one degree when you hear politicians using vague, grandstand phrases like "we will bring REAL change", and "we are going to give government back to the people," and Obama's favorite - which is a statement that, as far as I can tell, is completely devoid of any specific meaning whatsoever - "yes, we can!"

Where in any of those statements is a specific proposal for change? How does a declaration like "we are going to overhaul politics in this country!" let you know what a politician is going to do?

You're right - it doesn't.

And they know full well it doesn't.

hello Mallika and Everyone,

yogi-one, I hear you and that is exactly what has bothered me about all the Barak Obama fluff.

I would love for someone to pin him down on his no to going into Iraq because I really think that the folks who voted to go were actually a lot more honest about their vote, and the reason I think that is if anyone's vote was going to be the deciding vote on whether to go or not, after all the "so-called evidence" was presented to the World Community, no one would have wanted to be the one to say no. Who would have denied the Administration at that time and taken the risk of being wrong and putting this Nation at possible risk? Junior Senator Barak Obama? I really think not. Barak Obama knew his vote was not going to matter one way or another to the safety and well being of our Nation, he knew there were plenty of votes to go into Iraq and he therefore had the luxury of declining to give his permission. I am sorry, but I think Barak Obama is taking much too much credit for this NO vote because really if it had come down to his vote and his vote alone do you think he the would have said no to the Administration's claims as to the risk not going would cause? I, truly doubt it.

I think someone should press him a little more on the famous no vote. Ordinarily, I wouldn't even be bothered by this claim to fame but he has used it to the hilt and people are running it like it is some "great forward thinking visionary act." When, imho, it was a very calculated political move on the checker board of running a great Presidential campaign.

have a great day all, ruth

Hello again,

one more comment and then I'll stop. promise.

but don't you just love it...all this campaign stuff...the big...he said, she said, they said, who said, what said, why said, when said, didn't say, didn't mean, would never say....I stand behind everything he/she/they say...what do you make of that remark, what did they mean by that facial expression, do you think it was all make-believe?

I will bring change, I will make the difference, I will make all your dreams come true, I am the one, the only, the honest, the true, the blue, the answer to all and everyone's prayers so help me GOD!

Look at what I did, and didn't do, what I said and didn't say, Look at me, See me, love me and please, please, please VOTE for me.

gee, how many more months of this? all I can say is I am glad it is not me having to play this awesome game of who is going to win the seat of power in that big ole house in Washington, DC?

happy voting everyone, and good _ucking luck to us, Americans in makeing our choice...ruth

This is the guy, experience, insight, wisdom and intelligence is what we should vote for.

Listen to him, these words are not coming from the mouths of Clinton and Obama.

I hope every one doesn't get played in this election by those that want to keep everything the same the status quo crowds.

The words of this candidate are way beyond the others. Of course the country may not be of a high enough consciousness yet to vote for a higher or rather connected consciousness.

He also has a grip on the real world most citizen’s deal with, not the glitz world the others are part of.

It is no wonder the Status Quo political machines avoid him just like Ron Paul because they have no control over these two candidates.

I think it should be Ron Paul (Republican) vs. Dennis Kucinich (Democrat) because if either one get in things will have a change in the status quo leadership.

The others seem to be caught up in the same old illusions, including those talking about them.

Watch and listen.

i----i.org/kucinichdop.asx

Or click my name.

Yogi One,

Thank you for your response(#49). I for one believe that even if we don't live in a world where most people are aware of their wounds and are set on healing them, those of us who can, should do everything they can to stay awake and not get carried away by the public waves of emotional reaction.

Personal transformation does create collective transformation. Even if it's only a handful of people who face their wounds and heal them instead of walking the old roads, it is important, I think, and it may spread, who knows. These are times like we've never seen before, and arriving to certain collective realizations is not impossible at all. We do have the capacity.

Firstly, being young is not an advantage in politics. You are just going to spend (waste) time on the job to get the requisite experience. Promising the sun and the moon can never be taken at face value. It usually reeks of manipulation or 'spin'. Good orator is not necessarily a good decision maker.
All the above applied to a charming Tony Blair a decade ago. Look what he did. Consorted with a buffoon, took the worst foreign policy decision in the recent history, messed with the health service and nearly broke its back.
You don't have to be taken in by a fresh faced charmer and believe everything he says.
America needs a balance of power. For too long it has been one of the most testosterone fuelled of nations, speaking in the language of guns, using force rather than diplomacy, riding roughshod over everybody's toes.
It's about time America had a woman at the helm. It is not about women's equality etc. It is about what American politics lacks (Condoleeza Rice notwithstanding). It is what American politics needs. Come on, almost every other democratic country has had a woman in the premier's job and has become a better democracy for it. Why does America insist on becoming the most backward of the developed world?