image stats
date added
previous votes
log in


indent register
indent recover


1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars

Comments for: hillary-obama
shaDEz Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2007 12:19AM

Pressure to support the "lesser evil" Democrats in the next Presidential elections is already high. One of the center-pieces of the Democratic Party is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Many have illusions that as a Democrat and a woman, her policies will be much more "worker friendly". But in the final analysis, she defends the same system of capitalist exploitation and imperialism as Bush Jr., Bill Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc. She is sparing no expense and choosing her words carefully in order to prove to the billionaires that really run this country that she will be a loyal defender of the established order. This is the same approach taken by every other candidate for the Presidency, be they Republicans or Democrats.

The war in Iraq and its effects here at home is the most important issue on Americans' minds, with a vast majority in favor of an immediate or phased withdrawal. Due to its rising unpopularity, many Democrats are trying to wriggle out of the political fall-out the war is causing, and Hillary is no exception. So where does the Democratic front-runner really stand?
Hillary has been in positions of power for nearly two decades. During this entire time, the U.S. government has brought untold horrors upon the people of Iraq and other ex-colonial countries. She has been a strong supporter of the war from the beginning, having voted to authorize the invasion. She is opposed mostly to how Bush has conducted the war, and even now she is trying to out-do the neo-cons on battle plans for Iran.

Her pro-war efforts go back to her years as First Lady. In 1999 she pushed for the 78 day round-the-clock bombing of Yugoslavia. While on a trip to Africa at that time she phoned her husband, President Bill Clinton, and as she put it, "I urged him to bomb." In 1996 she toured Eastern Europe with Madeleine Albright, after which Hillary played an instrumental role in getting Albright confirmed in her post as Secretary of State. This was not long after Albright's infamous response to a question about the strangling sanctions the U.S. had imposed on Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright's response: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it." In 1998 Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made overthrowing Saddam Hussein a stated goal of U.S. foreign policy. This followed a Mid-East tour by Madeleine Albright highlighting the serious commitment the U.S. had to bringing about "regime change" in Iraq. That same year, Saddam kicked out UN inspectors after various provocations. This was the excuse Bill Clinton needed to launch Operation Desert Fox, a massive assault of aerial bombing and cruise missile strikes on Iraq.

Much like the rhetoric used by GW Bush in the build up to the current Iraq war, U.S. political leaders across party lines did everything they could to whip up a nationalist hysteria as to the imminent threat posed by Saddam and his alleged WMD to U.S. and world security. These words by Bill Clinton could just as well have come from Bush Jr.: "So long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, [and] the security of the world." And "The credible threat to use force, and, when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression, and prevent another Gulf War." Hillary Clinton was a staunch supporter of these actions. This brings us to the current invasion and occupation of Iraq. During an April 20, 2004 interview on Larry King Live, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade ... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." But, she said, the Bush Administration "really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that."

This notion that Bush and the clique he heads up were the sole perpetrators of the calamity in Iraq is nonsense. Hillary regularly attended high level meetings dealing with Iraq, including a visit to the White House when Condoleezza Rice was making the case for the Iraq resolution, and never raised any objections.

On the question of Iran, Hillary has this to say: "I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

Unlike Bush, Hillary actually has a good understanding of world relations from the perspective of the U.S. ruling class, so no one can accuse her of being a mere puppet. She only opposes Bush's Iraq policy because it has failed - it has nothing to do with her opposing the predations of U.S. imperialism. Despite her efforts to distance herself from direct complicity in the Iraq fiasco, it can be seen from the above that Hillary has a long history of supporting U.S. imperialism.

When U.S. presidents take office, they bring with them many political advisers and cabinet members - none of whom are elected. If we look at Hillary Clinton's inner political circle, we can get a flavor of what her Administration might look like.

Former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke, a bourgeois publicist and banker, is apparently lined up for the job of Secretary of State if Clinton wins in 2008. He was a big supporter of military action on Iraq during the Bill Clinton years, and remains so, although like so many others who are now posing as "anti-war", he is simply unhappy with the way it is being conducted.

Although not confirmed, it is widely believed that Madeleine Albright may play a big role in the Hillary presidency. As a strong believer in the executive power when it comes to the military, she stated before the war that Bush, "should have the authority," and once remarked to Collin Powell, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

On the most pressing foreign policy issues, Hillary often consults with former think tank researcher Andrew Shapiro, who is extremely hawkish on the matter of Israel. He will likely play an important role in helping shape the foreign policy of her presidency.

Jeffery Smith, who served on the CIA's general council, is another regular advisor to Clinton. A West Point graduate "soaked in military culture, he has worked on the Senate Armed Services Committee. While he too has tactical disagreements on the actual carrying out of the war, he agrees with the war itself.

Once again, it is clear that Hillary's main aim is to assure the ruling class that she will be a loyal defender of their interests and profits around the world. She can't possibly serve two masters - working people and the capitalists. Based on the above, it's clear who she will choose. For some, the fact that Hillary is a woman, and that she is allegedly a great defender of women's rights is reason enough to support her. But the reality is that the vast majority of women in the U.S. and across the planet are not in the privileged position of Hillary Clinton. Due to the actions of U.S. capitalism and imperialism, which she supports enthusiastically, hundreds of millions of women around the world live in conditions of abject misery and subjugation. The vast majority of women in the U.S. and across the planet are not in the privileged position of Hillary Clinton. The wars Hillary supports are a disaster for women around the globe and here at home, as health care, child care, education, and other vital services are cut to fund them.

Then there are those who say that because Hillary is a woman she is "unfit" to be the President. We reject this sexist viewpoint, which has no place in working class politics. What matters most is not a person's gender, but the class interests he or she represents and defends.

Any and all gains made by women under capitalism are under constant threat of reversal. American working women's interests are not represented by the likes of Hillary, Condoleezza, or Madeleine Albright, who are among the best defenders of the capitalist system of exploitation. Rather, working women should look to working class heroes like Lucy Parsons, Mother Jones, and Genora Johnson who fought for genuine equality and in the interests of all working people.

As for her position on immigration, Hillary is crystal clear: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."

As early as 2004, she began to stake out her claim against immigrants, going even further than Bush to paint immigrants as criminals, lumping immigrant workers with the threat of "terrorism". She has since voted for an act that establishes a guest worker program, increases border security and enforcement, and makes it unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an undocumented immigrant. She also voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which approved the construction of a 700 mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.

"People have to stop employing illegal immigrants. I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work." NAFTA was signed into law under Bill Clinton - these "loads" of people are the result.

If elected President, Hillary Clinton would be yet another in a long line of representatives of the U.S. ruling class. Just as her foreign policy would be one of war and exploitation, her domestic policy would be aimed at maximizing the profits of the capitalists. Simply put, we oppose Hillary Clinton because her interests are diametrically opposed to ours. Working people need a genuine alternative - a mass party of labor, armed with socialist policies that can truly address our needs. Until we break from the two parties of the bosses, we will always be under the rule and domination of their corporate paymasters.

Written by Shane Jones

After years of Bush’s open-ended war on working people at home and abroad, many on the “left” are desperate for an alternative. For many, that alternative is Barack Obama, a Democratic Senator from Illinois. Obama, who is very careful with his words and actions, has done a good job so far of portraying himself as a “sensible progressive”. However, far from being a “progressive” alternative, Obama is at his core a typical representative of the bosses’ political parties. Despite presenting himself as a candidate of “change”, Obama is a defender of capitalism and imperialism, and hence of exploitation and oppression. On all fundamentals, he is far closer to Bush than he is to being a genuine alternative for working people.

Far from seeking the end of class exploitation, Obama is a true believer in the capitalist system. Along with the likes of Joe Lieberman, a political and financial supporter of Obama whom Barack considers to be his “mentor”, he makes it clear that the Democratic Party is a party of the bosses: “The last I checked John Kerry believes in the superiority of the U.S. military, Hillary Clinton believes in the virtues of capitalism…”

Obama even criticizes the Democratic party from the right: “…Democrats are confused. There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New-Deal and Great-Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from liberal interest groups. But these efforts seem exhausted, a constant game of defense bereft of energy and new ideas needed to address the changing circumstances of globalization or a stubbornly isolated inner city.”

Obama, who earned just under $1million last year, is a supporter of the Hamilton Project, a group founded by Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury and current chair of Citigroup (the world’s largest company, with total assets of $2.02 trillion). As a Senator, Obama opposed a bill that would place a 30 percent interest rate cap on credit cards, which would help relieve high interest payments for many U.S. working families. Yet he voted for a “tort reform” bill that rolls back workers’ ability to seek redress and compensation if they are wronged by their employer.

On the question of health care, Obama is opposed to national single-payer health care, on the grounds that it would leave workers in the private health care industry, such as Kaiser and BlueCross BlueShield, unemployed! This is a smoke screen of the worst kind. He is attempting to appear pro-worker, while he is really defending the interests of big business against working people. Instead, he is in favor of “voluntary solutions” as opposed to “government mandates”. Yet as every worker knows, the bosses never “volunteer” to give us raises or benefits. The super-profitable health care industry is not going to sacrifice its profits. Obama is merely evading the question. He might as well state the truth: he is not for any fundamental change.

Like all good big business politicians, when the capitalists come with money and gifts, Obama becomes their political guardian angel. For example, he is a loyal defender of the leading U.S. nuclear power company Exelon, which has given more than $74,000 to his campaign. Exelon is the parent company of ComEd, the energy company currently price gouging Illinois consumers. Agro-capitalists Archer Daniels Midland have reportedly lent him the use of private jets for his campaigns. A few months after entering the Senate, Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in AVI BioPharma, a pharmaceutical company that would have benefited from legislation that he backed. George Soros, the prominent billionaire and master of capital speculation, supports Obama, although he said he would support Hillary Clinton, if she won the Democratic nomination. In either case, he feels confident that his billions of dollars will be safe.

It is on his “opposition” to the war that Obama has garnered much support, and understandably so, as the war is every day seen by more and more U.S. workers as a complete disaster. Many are seeking a real political opposition against the war, but what exactly does Obama mean when he “speaks out against the war”? Far from opposing the war on the basis that it is a war on workers and the poor at home and abroad, he would have preferred that the war had been better presented and more carefully planned. He is in favor of U.S. imperialism winning, but adds a pinch of semi-populist rhetoric, as many Democratic politicians have been doing as of late. He was simply quicker to jump on the bandwagon.

Obama is in fact a vigorous supporter of the wider “war on terror”. As he stated in a so-called anti-war speech in October 2002: “You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.” Obama voted to re-authorize the USA PATRIOT Act, which has been heavily criticized by civil rights layers as curtailing civil liberties. He opposed moves to censure Bush for illegal wiretapping, and voted to approve Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.

Obama has called for a “phased withdrawal” of U.S. troops and an opening of diplomatic dialogue with Iraq’s neighbors, Syria and Iran. In other words, he understands that the best U.S. imperialism can do is soften the blow of a defeat; outright victory is now an impossibility. Like other slightly more far-sighted leaders of the ruling class, he approaches this from the perspective of preserving the cohesion and readiness of the military – so it can be used in other imperialist adventures such as Afghanistan and beyond. Far from calling for an immediate withdrawal of occupying forces in Iraq, Obama has the perspective of further interventions in the region, with one possible scenario involving U.S. forces remaining in an occupied Iraq for an “extended period of time”, acting as a launching pad. This would call for “a reduced but active U.S. military presence” that “protects logistical supply points” and “American enclaves like the Green Zone,” which would send “a clear message to hostile countries Iran and Syria that we plan to remain a key player in the region.” U.S. troops “remaining in Iraq” will “act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and to go after terrorists.” Above all, Obama wants a “pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq,” and to “defeat the insurgency.” These, of course, are mutually exclusive aims. The insurgency is the popular uprising of an occupied people. The only solution is the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. and “coalition” troops from Iraq.

In March, Obama called Iran’s government “a threat to all of us ... [The U.S.] should take no option, including military action, off the table.” He added that the U.S.’ “primary means” of relating to Iran should be “sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions.”

In short, Obama is trying to be everything to everyone, both for the continuation of the war for one sector of the ruling class, and posturing against the war for another sector, all while demagogically trying to win votes from genuinely anti-war working people.

Obama, who could well be the first black U.S. president, has attempted to make benign the malignancy that is racism in the United States. American capitalism relies heavily on the oppression of minorities as a means of exploiting and dividing the working class. But Obama believes that “cultural issues” are at the core of black poverty – an argument also embraced by many right-wing racists. Even a cursory look at the history of oppression that black workers and communities have been faced with shows that this has little to do with “cultural issues”, but rather, has everything to do with the social structure of U.S. capitalism.

Are police brutality, the de-funding of inner city schools, and the gutting of public housing a “cultural issue”? Should the brutal repression and liquidation of an entire generation of black leadership, including MLK Jr. and Malcolm X, be considered a “cultural issue”? Is the fact that one in three black men in their twenties are in prison, out on bail, on probation, court supervision, community service, or parole a “cultural issue”? And yet Obama sees the discrepancy between blacks and whites in the U.S. as a question of personal drive or the lack thereof. He has claimed that blacks can’t progress, “If we don’t start instilling in our young children that there is nothing to be ashamed about in educational achievement. I don’t know who told them that reading and writing and conjugating your verbs was something ‘white.’ ”

Certainly, there are those who are critical of Obama due to the color of his skin. We soundly reject this racist point of view. Black workers in the U.S., along with their class sisters and brothers of all races and ethnicities, run the world’s most advanced economy every day. There is no reason why black men or women cannot not play a leading role in the political shaping of society. However, for Marxists, it is a question of which class interests someone defends. It must be made clear that anyone who wants to seriously tackle racism must be prepared to tackle capitalism. As a representative of the capitalist class, Obama is neither willing nor able to tackle either.

When it comes to immigration, Obama has sought to lump immigrant workers with terrorists in the drive to militarize the border. Obama took an active role in the Senate’s drive for further border security linked to new immigration laws. Beginning in 2005, he co-sponsored the “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act” introduced by Sen. John McCain. He also supported the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act” sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, which did not pass the House. In 2006, Obama supported another related bill, the $7 billion dollar “Secure Fence Act”, which authorized the construction of 700 miles of fences, walls and other security measures to be built up along the U.S.-Mexico border. President Bush signed it into law in October 2006, calling it, “an important step toward immigration reform.” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, whose appointment Obama approved, said the bill would “make substantial progress towards preventing terrorists and others from exploiting our borders,” directly implying immigrants and terrorists are one and the same.

He is also a strong supporter of “guest worker programs” and gave glowing praise to the May 18th proposal in the Senate that includes provisions to detain up to 27,500 immigrants per day, to hire 18,000 new border guards, and to construct an additional 370 miles of border walls.

Bush and his circle are certainly an extremely hawkish section of the ruling class, with plans for imperialist conquest based on their specific economic interests: oil and other energy holdings, armaments, construction, and other contract companies that benefit from military interventions, such as Halliburton. But the distinction between Bush and Obama is not principled. Obama, along with the more far-sighted strategists of the ruling class, seek only to curtail the excesses of the Bush clique, which are a threat to the stability of U.S. capitalism as a whole. In this sense, Barrack Obama actually more faithfully represents the interests of the capitalist class at this point in history than Bush. So is Obama really an alternative for working people? The facts speak for themselves.

Written by Shane Jones
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2007 01:03AM

All I can say about both of them is, yes, they both try to pretend they're "for the people", but, they're not. I've had people say.... "well, she was a mother, she knows how it is"..... give me a break.

It's easy, they both try to play the underlings, don't fall for it.

I go Ron Paul, you may not agree with everything he says but he is exactly what this country needs.......

Someone that tells the TRUTH!
shaDEz Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2007 01:06AM

what this country(and the whole world for that matter) needs is to be run by the working class, and merge all classes... the international proletariat
Mint Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2007 01:58AM

sitting on a razor blade over this one myself. But Republicans arent exactly better off in terms of the "lesser of 2 evils" comment (that was as far as i read. waaaay too long tongue
sticking out smiley) Considering bill clintons years i would probably go with Hillary if there was a guarantee it would go back to they way it was then, but thats not going to happen.
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2007 02:04AM

O.k., but, then there has to be "helpful people" in charge of all the other people, telling them what to do, when, etc..... then those people "give" so much that they are seen as "special" and given extra credit because... "they did so much good and are so nice that they deserve more", then, here we go again, back to square one, they are on top with people beneath them.

Here I go again.... that Communist thing was a scam from the beginning, you can say... "no, the people started that", alright, whatever, when "those guys" start things one of the oldest tricks in the book is to have "the people" push the ideas that you threw into the pit back at you and insist on having it... look at 9/11, the people jumped right into line and were very supportive and said yes to everything, even the Patriot Act (that was wrote before 911 ever took place).

Can you name one communist town in the world (ever) that worked and helped people?

It's a fantasy.... just like the Patriotic Propaganda that is jumped on by the American people on a daily basis.....

Now, I have to say, I agree with a lot of the things you say (for the people stuff), but, Communism is a waste of time, again, someone will always have to be in charge and..................... people are people.... or even better, you're probably to young but just like Daffy Duck got, "People are Phony".

Here there is a lesson in here somewhere.... Seasons
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2007 02:52AM

I've yet to have seen a clear choice candidate arise who would support my own ideologies, nor do I honestly expect that one will.

I often feel that we as a nation are standing at the brink of a great abyss in terms of where we will be 20-50yrs hence and I am saddened to think what "should" be done to preserve our nation will not be done.

While I can't say I'm in complete alignment with the proletariat vs capitalist argument portrayed above by shaDEz posting, I feel there are some valid points in it just as assuredly. I feel looking at the issues with the mindset that solutions can not be undertaken nor championed by people who like making money seems a bit short sighted all in all. I also take issue with the flip side of the concept that anyone making money must be inherently flawed in their thinking in relation to what is best for the working class American.

What to me personally will be the greatest crime in the upcoming election is that the only "real shot" candidate will likely be either Democrat or Republican and I fear neither party or their underlying agendas are what will be needed to move us as a country in the direction I would like to see us move towards for a truly brighter future.

I have watched all my life as America has moved further and further into the dire straits of a police state. Governmenet intervention into all facets of our lives has become more and more apparent and increasingly heavy handed in the way the laws are enforced.

While great strides forward in the area of womens rights and the rights of minorities have been made in my time on the planet (and as a US citizen) these same steps forward have come at a cost to mens rights and a form of litigously enforced discrimination against whites in favor of minority rights, which make no mistake friends is just as surely a form of discrimination just the same. Any time one gender or race receives empowerment or preferential treatment over any other THAT is just a differing form of discrimination, yet discrimination all the same.

It's only that in todays politically correct spotlight these moves can not be viewed as discriminitory lest one be viewed as a racist or a sexist and that is the argument used in EVERY reproach of the suppressive policies these moves have enabled.

In summation I feel that once more we will be faced with the same lesser of evils choices I've felt encompassed every election I've had the opportunity to vote in and no matter what, I don't feel any choice of candidates will be what's needed thumbs up

shaDEz Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2007 03:42AM

ahh yes, what about the "helpfull people"disappointed smileyi assume you are refering to the bill gates's - charitable people... and what nots, yes, what to do w/ them
uhhh hmmm distribute their wealth, they will become as the same class, the proletariat... and those that resist, well need i even say the sounds that they will here... it is in the lyrics of the anthem...
communism/socialism - marxism in general has been under attack by the progandas of capitalists since mr. marx wrote "das kapital"
and lets see, one town that ever helped the people, you ask(and you're really not going to like the answer for the propandas that have been put unto you) lol uhhh...
yes, surprise surprise! communism works and has worked for many years, despite the sanctions in cuba(yes i too for the longest time thought that cuba and castro was a poor misconception of marx's writing - like stalin - untill one of my comrades actually visted cuba before going to witness the venezuelain revolution and told me of the near utopian state there!)
and thanx for the toon, one of my favs from childhood...truth is most of the peoples dumb enough to fall for that are the ones already w/ wealth ; ]

yes, i see your point there with the "tables being turned" so to say, although in the bigger pic they have not really been turned at all(race and sex @ mr.K) no, but in some smaller arenas they have turned, and turned entirely so now it is sort of a "vengeance" excuse me, but in all seriousness, i have never looked at a woman as lesser than myself, nor a black(or whatever the fuck different "colour"winking
smiley, and yet it is cool to reverse the shit on me for something my ignorant asshole ancestors might have done...
no! we as a whole need to grow the fuck up and move on, with this evolved mentality!
as for petty nationalism... well, you really should think about that a lttle bit more(it really has all been done before in this history at least four times already)
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2007 07:52AM

There can never be a drastic change in our way of government without drastic measures and the shedding of blood. The people in our country are too timid to revolt and change the way things are now so it will stay the same. The idea of taking someones fortune away from them and distributing to the masses has some appeal to me as I am below the poverty level and would benefit from it, but the thought of forcefully taking it from people who have it sticks in my craw. I may be poor right now but there is still hope that I may be able to do something to change my situation in the future. If we take the wealth of the rich away from them and share it with all then the hope is destroyed. If all are equal in everything then where would be the desire to improve oneself. If we all have the same amount of money then where would be the desire to work and what would we be working towards. As envious as I am of the wealth of the rich, I still do not want to take it from them. I know how I would react if I were rich and someone tried to take it from me. Were that to happen there would be blood shed and with the aversion of the American people to blood shed I really don't think it could happen. Remember in order for a revolt to work it will require many people to shed their blood for it and it would not just be the rich who shed it. Our government and way of life may not be perfect but it is better than any other in the world today.
madmex2000 Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2007 03:22PM

As a proud Democrate , i will not vote for neither(none). Were DOOMED to vote another uncharismatic dimwitt.
Ctrl+ALT+DEL the canadates and start over.
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: July 23, 2007 12:40AM

shaDez have you watched Zeitgeist? If not you should AT LEAST go to 1:53:20 on the video, listen to Carl Sagan. Yes, he gets deep.

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 23, 2007 08:39AM

madmex2000 Wrote:
> As a proud Democrate , i will not vote for
> neither(none). Were DOOMED to vote another
> uncharismatic dimwitt.
> Ctrl+ALT+DEL the canadates and start over.

For the first time I agree with madmex. There are no decent candidates but we can't do a Ctrl+ALT+DEL and start over. The only thing which might bring about a change in our choices would be if nobody voted but that is not going to happen. There wil always be some who are happy with the choices available and will vote, so I will votes to try and counter someone else's vote. Like it or not, this is what we have to work with.
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: July 23, 2007 11:24AM

Both the same both should DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!the finger
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 23, 2007 10:19PM

Anonymous Wrote:
> Both the same both should
> DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!the finger

Wow, someone's obviously missed a few days worth of their meds again. Perhaps a conversation with someone besides a pharmacologist might be in order to help you out there anon drinking

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: July 24, 2007 02:59AM

Ron Paul 2008.....
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: August 09, 2007 05:51PM

Obama = closet muslem