Shame on you CFK!  Shame on you!  I look forward to debating you in Ohio [(under the breath) you bastard].

Sincerely yours,
Hillary Clinton


(Message edited by LAguy on February 25, 2008)

Just so there is no confusion, Hillary Clinton is not LAguy. I repeat, Hillary Clinton is not LAguy. She simply bogarted my computer without my knowledge. Shame on her!

I happen to know that Hillary Clinton is friendly with Turk777, and Huckabee has been known to troll this board when his wife is asleep and God is not watching.

Is Turk 777 the new improved model of Turk 5555? If so, whatever became of Turk 666?

Bluestraveller,

you and Laguy are really confusing me now........
It's bad enough I've got to fly up to Ohio, but dealing with Turk and the Rev. Huckabee! I am gonna make Hemp deal with this-he started it.

CFK
PS:Laguy P R O B A B L Y gave out his ID/Pin......obviously during a post-coital state with her.

Sorry to disappoint you CFK, but I don't mess with chicks with dicks.

Unbelievable that the Democratic race has come down to this: a candidate who about 48 percent of the electorate wouldn't even consider voting for, and a rookie making Dukakis-like rookie mistakes. Just hope the electorate wakes up to McCain's warts and decides he has even more than whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be.

I never thought I would say this, but Al Gore is beginning to look better and better notwithstanding his numerous flaws.

But what this Country has overwhelming agree......is we NEED a change for the normal day polictics that has been running this Country!

I continue to stand behind guy Obama.....who pretty much has it locked up, whether we like it or not!!

I recall started a thread some time ago.....and so many people thought he was going to be OUT of the race a long time ago.

Damm.....if I was betting man, I would have won a whole lot of money...LOL!!

The events of the last two days make me think Obama no longer has a lock on the nomination, and if he hobbles to the finish line and gets it he likely will lose the general election.

If any of you don't know what I am talking about, just turn on any news channel and you will find out.

IMHO....his opponents look for any opening to attack him, as a desperate attempt to prevent
him from gaining the momentum he continues gain.

Good example, was the Rev Wright issue.....but it appears he has the ability to handle these
type of attacks very well and move on!

Now....just because he may have chosen some words that offended some people, he will lose! Kind of far fetched if you ask me....

And just because a certain topic is being talked about in the news TODAY.....is clearly not detrimental! In a few days....will be another subject.

What is obvious....Clinton and her supporters are actively pushing the current issue regarding Obama's bitter comments.....in a desperate attempt to move voters attention against her Bosnia issue!

The polls and all these day to day issues come and go.....and appear to reflect voters'opinions of the present day.

What stands out to me about Obama....is the manner in which he runs his campaign. Colin Powell mentioned this and appears to the most credible argument I heard to date.

How a candidate runs his political campaign organization, tends to show the first signs of how they may run a Country.

Just like a President, who has to run different agendas all over the Country and basically overlook national issues from state to state.....while overseeing a variety of agencies and heads of departments......so does a campaign!!

Obviousy...you have to be in touch with the hundreds of people who are pushing your issues and agendas forward!

Despite Clinton's well established political machines....it is obvious she has issues in the manner in which her campaign has been running.

What is not in dispute, Obama appeared to gather some of best minds available and started a grass roots efforts to go against some strong, established political machines.

Given the fact that he continually raises
unprecendent amounts of money, that continue to break history with ANY candidate in the past.....speaks volumes! The fact that he continues to bring thousands into the politial process...including younger voters..that hasn't been seen since the Kennedy days....is also very impressive!

And for a rookie....that came out of nowhere, to build such a solid organization that is clearly competing at the TOP of this politcal process....is also very impressive!

Say what you want.....but Obama has taken this Country by storm and I'm only giving credit...where credit is due!

IMHO....this Country needs this type of political savy to make a difference.

Just my two cents..

What Obama said about a lot of working-class people - i.e. lower-middle/middle class whites in outer suburbs and rural areas - being bitter is basically true - and it's good he said it now, since he's been running as the Teflon PC Candidate that no one can criticize. He just lost a million white votes with that comment.

If Obama can really get minorities and kids out to vote in November, then he may win, although I remain convinced that 5-10% of people who would vote Democratic will vote against him because he is extremely liberal, has no real qualifications for the office, and is black/lawyer/immigrant kid/walking liberal political-correctness litmus test. So, if he can get those you have never come out in any numbers in the past to come out this time, he'll win. Otherwise, he's hoping the economy and war and Bush hangover supresses McCain's vote enough to get by.

If we would nominate Gore or Edwards or any other number of moderate Dems, we would be 10 points up in national polls and looking at 325-350 electoral votes without having to break too much of a sweat during the general election. As is, the Dems seem intent on making life as hard on themselves as possible.

I'll put the Democratic victory odds at about 65% now, down 10% since my last prediction as the Dems may be on a Kamikaze run with this guy when they simply don't have to. Extremely frustrating.

To be clear, I like Obama and have felt he has a better chance of winning the general election than Clinton, contrary, I suspect, to what Catocony has believed. However, I am not blind to the fact Obama's idiotic (for a politician who wants to win) statement about how rural Americans are bitter and therefore cling to their guns and religion will do real damage. Although in isolation the statement might not seem all that bad, these things cumulate and can serve to reinforce the doubts many voters already have about Obama, including that he is too liberal, an elitist, and only goes through the motions with regard to the Second Amendment and faith (two things I could care less about, but are important to many of the voters Obama would need to win). Catocony may be too generous in saying it will only cost him one million votes in the general election.

The only consolation is the statement is on a scratchy audio tape rather than video, unlike Kerry's statement "I voted for the 78 billion [or whatever the figure was] before I voted against it," which very well may have cost him the Presidency. I suspect Obama's statement about clinging to guns and religion will have a significant negative effect on his chances, although I hope I am wrong. I guess we will just have to wait to see whether McCain ends up saying anything as politically stupid to sort of even the odds and provide a counterbalance to the stream of negative ads the Republicans will run highlighting Obama's statement.

McCain doesn't have to say anything for the next few months. He can sit back and raise money and quietly convince the splintered Republican groups to rally behind him.

I just ran across this analysis of Obama's recent blunder in www.politico.com. This regrettably does not IMHO look like a one-day, or one-week story:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9561.html.

What was he thinking?

It was a very naive comment made by Obama, but I think he'll survive and learn from it.

My reasoning is that at this point it is too late for Clinton to climb back into the election. Even Democrats, as un-strategic as we generally are, will not let their convention be mired in chaos, so we'll see the super delegates line up and vote for Obama. He'll get the nomination.

The general election worries me a little bit more, because of the Electoral College system. We know from recent history that places like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania matter more than places like New York or Texas. Obama's comments may tend to resonate in PA and OH, because those are where the tons of bitter lower/middle class white Americans live. And Florida, although I know it very well as that is my home state, is completely unpredictable.

So his comments are relevant not because of how many people Obama alienated in absolute numbers, but because of where those alienated persons live and vote.

My hopes and predictions for the general election are as follows:
1. People will vote like they did in 1992, against incumbency based on the economy more than anything else.

2. Voters in most of the swing states (OH, PA, MI) are far less racist than in places like Texas or Alabama, which is a good thing for Obama.

3. Obama is charming, charismatic, and seems to have a good political strategy team behind him. They’ll figure out a way to spin out of the current gaffe, and to avoid it happening again going forward.

For the record, I am not only voting for Obama, I have also campaigned for him within the ex-Pat community in Germany and donated money to his campaign. Since I am living abroad at the moment, it's harder for me to keep my finger on the day to day pulse of American voters. So I may have a tendency to see things through a skewed prism, but this is still how it seems to me.

LM

I previously thought the possibility of a Gore candidacy was lunacy, but should the super delegates conclude Obama cannot win (and they would need the polls to back them up in order to do this) they could always withhold their votes on the first ballot and then give it to Gore, with Obama getting the VP slot. Unlikely, but to my eyes it is beginning to look like a long-shot possibility.

And for the record, I also have given some money to the Obama campaign, although only after Edwards (who would have whooped McCain's ass) dropped out. I'm now getting that Dukakis/Kerry feeling though.

Obama's comment was directed towards people who are sssssssssoooooooooo stupid that they would not think of voting for anybody who does not have an (R) beside their name on the ballot.

I see both sides of this thing. It was a dumb dumb dumb comment, and it will certainly cost him votes. The question is how long the issue will last. If it comes up again in a debate or in the press 3 months from now, that will be even worse.

All that said, I still think there is no way that McCain can win. This is not Dukakis and Kerry. In Dukakis, Reagan was an extremely popular present, and then Bush Jr. had just led the country into war. But now, it is widely seen that the country is truly in a mess and that radical change is required.

So I really wish that Obama would not say such stupid stuff, because it hurts his chances, but he still is going to win even if this issue persists. Which I don't think it will.

See what happens when a politician tells the truth ??

No wonder all we get is sanitized politally correct pablum from our candidates.

I recently was on an airplane talking to my neighbor about politics (somehow I have a tendency to yabber about politics). Anyway, after he expressed some discomfort with Obama's involvement in Rev. Wright's church, I tried to explain (not excuse) how Obama probably got involved in Rev. Wright's church in Chicago to help establish a political base. My neighbor said something like it would be nice if there were politicians who didn't participate in such cynical ploys. My response was I am sure there are, but you will never hear about them because they are not playing the game.

Sad, but IMHO true.

Changing the subject a bit, I am watching CNN's so-called "Compassion Forum" where Clinton and Obama are answering questions from religious kooks about religious issues and related things. Talk about pandering. I find the notion that presidential candidates have to answer questions such as whether they believe the earth was created in seven days, etc. (and have to answer these gingerly so as not to offend the huge religious kook voting block we have in the U.S.) in order to further their presidential ambitions outrageous, and an indication of how low this country has gone.

Anyone else have a similar reaction?

Absolutely It'as disagusting to watch the whole process of campaigning which is basically going from place to place and telling people what they want to hear - or at least as close as possible without totally violating one's beliefs (usually).

If it's just a mere stretch of the truth - well it's all about getting elected isn't it ??

I would love to see one politician have the cajones to actually stand up for what they truly believe. Tell the creationists they are full of shit. Tell the neocons they are a cancer on our country. Tell the unions they have outlived their real purpose and are dragging our econmoy down by pricing our products out of the marketplace. Tell the lobbyists and special interests to go f**k themselves.

Alas he or she would never get near office.

Quote from LAGuy: "somehow I have a tendency to yabber about politics"

Really? I never gleaned that from any of your posts.

A buddy of mine is very involved with organizing the Compassion Forum. Unfortunately, not having McCain there also minimizes its desired impact. And you guys are both right in that the degree of pandering is abominable, yet necessary in our political environment.

LM

I sat next to a jesus freak missionary based in rural Thailand on my last trans-pac trip. REALLY NICE guy. I didn't talk to him about the Old Testament, but I did twist his arm to talk about the presidential race. As he was from Arkansas originally, I really wanted to know what he thought about Hillary, but he wouldn't much comment other than "I always start with what their 'moral' stance is..." He did proceed to say he liked what he knew about Huckabee...

ABC news is getting widely criticized tonight around the blogosphere (and rightfully so) for their handling of the Democratic debate last night.

As of now there are over 10,000 comments on ABC's website about it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/comments?type=story&id=4666956

If you glance through, most of them seem to be critical about the debate spending way too much time on stuff like Wright, Ares, Bittergate, who will be the Veep, if Wright loves America and my all time favorite issue - lapel pins.

(Allow me to get angry for a second.)

FUCKING LAPEL PINS. YES LAPEL PINS. With all the problems facing America right now because of the current administration we are spending time asking the candidates about FUCKING LAPEL PINS! Incredible.

(Angry off)

Greg Mitchell from the Huffington Post puts it nicely.

"ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame."

"Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations."

Props to everyone who is blowing up ABC NEWS' website now with complaints.

A nice video mashup of the ridiculous questions that were asked is available here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/16/attention-abc-youre-hurting-america/

The audacity of cynicism

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/no-one-left-to.html

A nice video of Hillary contractions and why she has no credibility with me whatsoever. Politicians are all a bunch of liars, but Hillary just so blatantly lies and so easily contradicts herself every time she opens her mouth.

Ok, last post for now.

I haven't seen an in depth article about this yet, but I wanted to mention fundraising by Obama as I have seen it mentioned several times now.

Basically he has revolutionized fundraising for a national campaign. Instead of relying on big money and big donors Obama has a network of over a million donors that average $109 per contribution.

Simply amazing. The guy can essentially raise money at will and not tap out his donor base. Every month they ask for a small donation. When you have 1,000,000 donors, even 1,000,000 X $25 would equal $25,000,000 just like that.

It also means Obama is not bought and paid for with big business money like the other candidates are and it really could mean a different kind of Presidency for America.

Worse possible outcome tonight for the Democrats - a convincing win by Hillary.

I would be very surprised if we don't see McCain as President now. The best the Democrats can hope for now is expanding their majority in the Senate (hopefully to 60) and then expanding in the House as well.

With a McCain Presidency, you can now expect at least a 7-2 conservative majority on the Supreme Court which will be damn near disastrous for this country.

John Paul Stevens is so old and Ginsburg is not in the best of health.

You can also expect a clueless economic policy from John "I don't know much about economics" McCain. And then of course we can continue spending 12 billion a month in Iraq. This is depressing.

The best thing that could happen would be for someone to bait McCain for his famous temper or have his mis-speak in a really bad and a game changing way. He doesn't speak publicly very well.

Don't worry, these are the "dog days" for the presidential race. If there were no Democrat primary fight, no one would be paying any attention at all.

Look at this way, how many new voters registered in Pennsylvania because of this primary?

The polls are useless right now because the Dem votes are split. Once either candidate is nominated Mc Cain will sink like a turd. Back when I was a young un there was no nominee until during the convention . Some required many roll call votes and a few back room deals. The candidates did not see to suffer.

McCain is too close to being a Bush clone to get elected. All the Dems need to do is organize, rally around one candidate - they will eventually - and hammer that point home.

I don't know. I think they both become more and more unelectable the longer this thing goes on and Hillary was damn near unelectable the minute she started running.

Something like 14%-20% of Hillary voters won't vote for Obama in a general election and like 9%-15% of Obama supporters won't vote for Hillary.

Obama is popular with smart white guys and blacks overall. Hillary is popular with blue collar workers and Latinos. This thing is just a mess right now and the longer it goes on the worse it is going to get. Hopefully Obama wins big in Indiana and North Carolina. He will in NC. But man.

I personally believe Hillary is willing to blow up the entire Democratic party to get the nomination and doesn't care a bit about the consequences of that.

Those percentages will not hold up when the choice becomes McCain or a Democrat . It's just frustrated people answering a poll question right now. Different story when the reality is faced.

I hope !!

If Hillary wins the nomination, I may just sit on my vote. I cannot see anyway of voting for her!!

I can't see how Hillary is popular with the blue collar workers. She was a lawyer for Wallmart, one of the most anti-union, anti-worker companies out there.

We had 4 years of Bush Sr. 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of Bush Jr. This nation needs a change, and if you think Bush and the Republicans have made life hard for adult web sites, and our hobby. Wait until Hillary and NOW get into the white house.

RG

Dennis Hoff endorsed Hillary. I am not about to call him the foremost political authority, but if he is willing to endorse Hillary, one can say that at least he apparently has concluded she wouldn't be bad for our hobby (or as bad as some of the alternatives).

Roadglide, don't repeat the mistake you earlier made when you voted for Bush (if my memory serves me right) and ignored those of us who said he would be a tool of the religious right. What really counts for us hobbyists at the federal level are the courts (as in the judges that get appointed) and the Justice Department. Any notion that McCain would be better than Hillary in terms of the judges he would appoint, or the policies that would be implemented by the Justice Department, is as fanciful as the notion four or eight years ago that Bush would not be a tool of the religious right.

Although Hillary is not my first choice, I see very little to support the notion that she would make life harder for adult web sites and our hobby. Most Democrats these days have at least a semblance of support for the First Amendment, civil liberties, and so forth, and Hillary is among them. Even if Hillary might not personally be a great fan of our activities (or Bill's for that matter), this does not translate into using the government to repress them.

I still am going to root for a Gore-Obama ticket as unlikely as that is. It is the only way out of this mess that has at least anywhere near some measure, albeit remote, of plausibility.

OTOH, couldn't we just run back the clock and nominate Edwards? . . . I didn't think so.

BTW, in the service of truth, Hillary was not an attorney for Walmart; she served on their Board. That certainly raises some questions, but the biggest is what positions did she take on various issues while on the Board? Pretty weird, though, to be anti free trade agreements and a pal of Walmart.

Yet, somehow, she's getting the bluecollar vote. Proves again that in American politics, what you say is more important than what you've done, for Dems and Repubes alike.

The reality is that when one party, be it your party or another party, controls the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, then they can push through just about any crazy idea they come up with. The secret of Bill Clinton's success is he was unable to do much of anything after the first 2 years and congress was likewise unable to do much of anything for 6 years.... and when the government does nothing, the country thrives in the absence of being fucked with so much.

Clinton/Gingrich '94 -- McCain/Pelosi '08 :D

I have concluded as long as they are consumed with fighting amongst themselves they tend to leave me alone.

Actually, Hillary became a director of Walmart when she was at the Rose law firm. At the same time Walmart was one of the Rose law firm's biggest clients. Whether Hillary worked as an attorney on Walmart's cases I don't know, although given she was appointed to its board I suspect she well might have.

The again, maybe she was distracted by her trading in commodities and left others at the firm to attend to Walmart's business.

I hope I'm not detracting from my plea to Roadglide to vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee.

I am Sancho: I guess that means you are real happy with the way things are going now, Bush as President and a Democratic Congress. Perhaps you could lead the movement to give Bush a third term since it is all but guaranteed the Dems will continue to control Congress.

Wal-mart wasn't that big of a deal back then - I don't think I saw one until I was in college out in the boondocks. A much smaller company with a much smaller footprint back then.

They all make me throw up. I changed my registration from Republican to Independent in January. One of the reasons for our current situation is its an election year, nothing gets done, for fear one party will look good and make it more difficult for the other party to win. I hate all Dems and Republicans, they see EVERYTHING thru party eyes and not what's best for the country. All the moves made by both Bush and Clinton over the years were inspired by special interest affiliation and not getting this country on track to prosper. If the election was 3 years away we would not be in this mess, the dollar would not be in the tank ect ect. Gas is at $4 a gal. and they want to mail me $400???. go fuck yourself. The two party system has outlived it's usefulness.

Laguy; You got one scary memory. Yes I did vote for Bush. Yes I know I fucked up.

One of the things that I think is important here are the running mates. Who will be the VP? I can see the odds makers in Vegas taking bets on how long McCain or Obama will survive as the President, although for different reasons.

RG.

it is a sad statement, "two party system outlived usefulness", but it sure seems accurate. it really doesn't seem to matter which party wins, the result is the same. all the promises made during the campaign are put on the back burner and we continue on with the status quo. change is too difficult and might jeopordize future support for such party (despite the fact that supporters of both party's often desire the same change).

there was health care for all. didn't make it. there was the save social security plan. didn't make it. how many americans are in favor of these two points ? and it can't happen because two powerful idiots (reps/dems) can't compromise.

i would suggest an alternating presidency as a way to break this hideous deadlock of no progress. 4yrs dem, 4yrs rep, 4 yrs dem, 4yrs rep, etc... no two terms, just alternates starting at end of bush term. i think this would force the two parties to work together and treat the governing of the country more like a partnership.

another possible move might be age limits for the house and the senate. some of these folks need to be put out to pasture but their loyal followers can't do it to them. let an age limit take care of it for them. i'd say 60 sounds like a good number. over 60 and you can't go again. these folks are part of the log jam as well and it seems like many are living way too far in the past.

For anyone who thinks that ending the two-party system will eliminate special interests or partisan politics, take a look at every government around the world that has multiple parties. Talk about tyranny by minority, it's all special interests at that point. If both big parties are at 45% and there are a couple of splinter groups with 1-3%, those little groups have far more power than they proportionally should have. The little parties basically need to be bribed to do anything, constant cutting of deals and feeding pork to these small parties. How many times has the Italian government crashed due to small factions switching sides? How many nationwide strikes do you see in France or Germany or South Korea because some small militant labor faction has a few swing votes and they force the bigger guys to lay off the striking unions?

Two-party systems seem unfair, they are partisan, but look at governments that effectively have two-party systems vs those that have 3-7 or more parties of various sizes.

Cat: So our current system is working?
Gas at $4 a Gal. diesel $5 gal.
A friend of mine just lost all 3 of his furniture stores his home and everything he worked for his whole life it happened in less then a year.
3 airlines bit the dust this month with more to follow.
Bush is an oil man, all his friends are reaping profits at a shameful rate and we are powerless to do anything about it, and you don't feel there is a better way??

These things are relative. Relative to the ideal, our current system is not working. Relative to Zimbabwe, or system is beyond stellar.

In fact it is somewhere in between. The problem is in finding alternatives that would improve things over what we presently have.

Multi-party systems can be a disaster. Addng to the list Catocony made, the ultra-religious right has historically had disproportionate power in Israel as a consequence of their relatively small parties holding the balance of power. Although I find a lot of things attractive about a multi-party parlimentary system, the power small parties can wield when they hold the balance of power is not one of them.

Individually we are powerless to do anything about the current regime or system. Collectively we are not. The frustrating thing is "the people" seem incapable of exercising their power constructively. The people voted to give George Bush a second term. The people are about to vote to give George Bush a third term although McCain will be the name on the ballot. The people in the Democratic Party (forgetting about the wrinkle that in some states non-party members can vote in primaries) have reduced their presidential field down to the two candidates who among the serious contenders in the primaries are the least likely to prevail in a general election.

And this is all happening when the vast majority of the American public oppose the war in Iraq, but consider McCain the presidential candidate who would most effectively handle the Iraq situation.

I'm not so sure a structural change to our system would solve much of anything. Perhaps a federal program to give the populace brain transplants would (although where suitable brains would come from is problematic).

Re: Bush/Pelosi

I hate Pelosi and can bring myself to side with almost nothing she stands for. However, I will concede that if the Dem's had won congress in 2002 and Bush held onto the Presidency in 2004. We would be far better off today. Why you ask? Because a democratic congress would have advanced some great things that a Republican congress did not???? NO! Because the government would have fallen into 6 years of partisan bickering just like in the Clinton years. Democratic congress would pass wave after wave of crazy bill that cost billion's of dollars dollars. Bush would veto it. Bush would come up with some crazy scheme after crazy scheme that were doomed to failure. Democratic congress wouldn’t have funded it. Both sides would launch wave after wave of pointless investigations at each other and while partisans battled, the American public would be left alone and thrive.

Most of the problems today that I see are the result of run away spending and just plain too powerful and invasive of government. Economics 101, overspending by the government requires printing more money which devalues the money which causes inflation. Solution. Cut wasteful spending. Republicans seemingly abandoned that even though it was their historical position. Democrats propose MASIVE increases in spending as the solution, which will surly doom us all if actually implemented.

As for the Dem race. Even though I hate her, I would take Hillary over Obama because at least I believe Hillary might be the more pragmatic of the two. Either, coupled with a Democratic congress spells disaster as I am sure they would come up with 500 new laws for me to have to follow and pay for in the first 90 days.

Gridlock is however the best possible outcome in a really bad situation.

Question - when was the last time there was a "tax and spend" Democratic administration? Not Carter, not Clinton, I guess LBJ, which was only 40 years ago. So, I'm a little sick of the "Democrats will just raise taxes and spend my money". I paid out close to $50k Federal income tax in 2007, but I didn't feel the warm glowing glow of the Republican tax cuts which primarily helped people in my tax bracket. Why? Because when they cut taxes, they increased spending, more than any Democrat ever has. As a result, a massive deficit, which led to a weak dollar, which is leading to high commodoties prices. Throw in all of the hedge fund money which is in commodoties now after stock and housing bubbles have burst, and prices are even higher. Keep in mind that with the dollar down 25-50% against a lot of currencies, that doubling in the price of a barrel of dollar-denominated oil is largely on us.

As to whether the current system is working, yes it is, compared to any other system on the planet. Let the Green party take a senate seat or two, or maybe the Christian Party take a bunch of House seats in the South and Mountain states, and see how much you like a multi-party system then.

But LAGuy has hit it on the head, people voted stupidly because most people don't know any better. If McCain is elected, just wait until there are 6 conservative seats on the Supreme Court, which would happen regardless of Democratic control of the Senate. Wait until more "executive orders" are signed.

At this point, Cheney/Bush has created a very "imperial presidency", and the only way to cleanse the shit out of the office is to elect a Democrat. Another Republican, no matter how moderate, will not do. Yeah, my dipshit buddies at the DNC and the state party levels are mainly to blame for this pig-fuck of a nominating procedure, but they meant well. Just your usual "do everything except the things that make it easy to get elected". It's a liberal form of self-flagellation, and ugly to see.

The last "tax and spend" Democratic administration was '92-'94 but voters clipped that little episode in the bud, thankfully before to much damage was done, so it all worked out pretty good. Democrats owe Newt a debt of gratitude for saving their guy from himself just in the nick of time. The Republicans. They have no excuse this time. I am probably more pissed about the way they threw away so much money than anyone on the left. I have been let down. I could easily be drawn over to the dark side except....... the Dem's offer no viable alternative at all. I watched one or two of the debates. Hillary and Obama mainly seem to debate over which one of them is planning to waste the most of my money. Hillery says I'm going to spend 12 billion of this guys money to give free stuff to everyone and then Obama top's her by saying he's going to spend 12 billion. On the Republican side they have proven they cant be trusted with my money but at least McCain talks about restraining spending.

The small government guys in the country have been hung out to dry by the Republicans but the Democrats offer nothing either. Not the slightest alternative. The Democratic position has been and STRONGLY remains "the rules the religious right has made for you are bad, therefore we have a huge set of rules we are going to impose on you as an alternative to the bad rules".

Oh and health care? Do you really want the people who fixed your airport security in charge of fixing your health care?

I always find it amusing, if not sad, that those on the right complain about Democratic spending while sitting idly by when the Republicans go on spending orgies. For the sake of argument, how can anyone get obsessed about the Dems wasting 12 billion dollars on nothing when Bush and the Republicans are gladly wasting a trillion or so on the Iraq war, and our national debt has risen to close to 10 trillion (isn't it something like 15 to 20 percent of your federal tax dollar--and rising--goes to interest on the national debt)?

Not to condone wasteful spending or anything but perhaps a little perspective is in order.