Chek above... :D

I really wish that folks would stop repeating the hype about Bill Richardson.  I'm not sure what your criteria is for greatness in a governor.

Here are a few of his moves which were not so great in my book.

First of all - He blocked single-payer.  He put together a body to study various options for a state health plan.  The advise came back that the single-payer option was the most cost effective.  Richardson blocked that plan & said he would not allow a plan that did not include a role for private, for profit insurers.

Second - as governor, he blocked the Kerry v Bush recount.

Third - he gave tax cuts to the wealthiest New Mexicans thus broadening the gap between rich & poor.

Forth -  He moved up the primary date, but limited polling places to one or two per county.  Since the "caucus" is in February, it limits accessibility to the polls, especially in rural areas and for the poor.  In effect he limited voting access to wealthy urban dwellers in Albuquerque, Rio Ranch, Las Cruces and Santa Fe, where voters are more likely to agree with  his pro-corporate policies.

there's so much more - but that's a start.


````
peace

Welcome aboard.Many of the same reasons I support Obama. BTW I always enjoyed reading your diaries.

I really believe that the root of the current problems in America starts and ends with the endless divide seperating people from the solutions available in academic circles etc.

Having someone who can work with everyone again will truly be a new day in America.

Barack won't just be a good candidate

He won't just be a good Leader

He could be the Greatest President the US has seen since FDR, if he lives up to his potential, gets cooperation and solves the crisis America is currently in.

He has the highest upside potential of any candidate running!

with Obama, though I still hold out hope for Edwards.

Either or, I'd like to see the two of them on the ticket together, no matter which is on top.

Hope ya had a great holiday! :)

this is one were you have completely lost me.
I just can't see how anyone looking for real change would even consider Obama, unless the change you are looking for is just more of the same old "go along to get get along, don't rock the boat politics" that seems to be the norm of the all democratic candidates except for John Edwards.

I'm leaning Edwards at this point, but truly torn. Thanks for the help.

And a good choice! Please accept a four...

from left to right at the hands of the manipulators in government and in the media. But every once in a while, perhaps in a generation do we have a real opportunity to break away from this cycle-- more of a death spiral in recent years.

Not one individual is capable of breaking the country away from this cycle alone, but one person can certainly inspire others to begin the process. Creating a positive work in progress for the common good is the only way left out of our  current predicaments. And if hope is defined as the abandonment of cynicism, and compromise as the setting aside of hostilities for the sake our national integrity, we are understanding the message he's bringing.

We can help this man inspire us by knowing he hears us and knowing that we've heard him by our votes.

i'm pretty much down with exactly what you said.  still officially undecided between obama and edwards, but i'm leaning toward obama at the moment. because of what you said, but also because of the primary-time stupidity of other candidates' supporters.

it seems most of the dumbass "gotcha" stuff is being directed at obama right now, and that just backfires with me.  especially this whole narrative of "right-wing talking points" and the idea that he's attacking al gore and john kerry by pointing out that the last two presidential elections have seen a very divided nation, exactly the same stuff we've been saying around here for years.

but my favorite had to be the clinton-supporter diary that attempted to prove that obama was using right-wing talking points to attack ted kennedy. the proof: a 30-second video clip from 2003 of obama adressing the afl-cio wherein he exhorts kennedy to get some spine and stand up to the republicans. that's how ridiculous it's gotten.

the other thing is that he appears to have the kind of charisma and political savvy to have most of the stupid stuff roll off his back and not put a dent in his campaign. even the corporate media seems to have had no luck pushing their BS, like about his name sounding like osama, or his middle name being hussein or any of the rest.  so if any of our field has a reagan-level teflon coat, it's obama.  normally that wouldn't be important to me, except this time i think you're right: it's about to hit the fan.  and the GOP and RWCM are going to try to blame us when the last 8, 18 or 38 years of republican misrule blow up in uncle sam's face.  we cannot let that nonsense stick to us.

still like edwards, a lot, with the agressive populism.  my ideal matchup would be edwards v. huckabee.  that way the economic populist agenda would be a done deal. and watching the punditariat soil their pants over that one would have me laughing all the way to november.

the one thing that does worry me about obama is the possibility that he would try to get reconciliation without justice.  "water under the bridge" and all that.  i'm worried because if there are no penalties for this administration's attacks on the constitution, we'll be setting a precedent by default that "unitary executive" is within accepted parameters. and if there are no prosecutions and punishment for war crimes, there's no chance we regain even the slightest degree of moral leadership in the world.

http://www.mydd.com/...

As I've said before, Obama is the Bill Clinton of THIS generation:  Smooth, full of charm, capable of connecting with people on a rhetorical level . . . and at heart, a corporate moderate Democrat that will do whatever it takes to cement his hold on power.

I think you delude yourself if you think that today's "Bill Clinton' is going to have any easier time pushing legislation through than the original Bill Clinton did once he got into office in 1993.  For example, I remember that at the beginning of 1993, Clinton gave a speech arguing for the need for a tax increase, especially on the wealthy.  Immediately after the speech, a poll was taken showing that Clinton's appeal had connected and something like 70% of the American people were willing to abide by a tax increase to balance the budget and take care of our fiscal problems.

However, several months later, after months of Republican rhetoric hammering his proposal--months during which the Clinton Administration DID NOTHING to answer those Republican attacks--he was only able to pass his budget raising taxes on the rich by ONE VOTE in the Senate . . . and public opinion that once supported him, had now eroded.  Meanwhile, from that point on, I saw betrayal after betrayal after betrayal take place on the part of the Clinton Administration as he offered only token support in the face of Republican obstructionism for the the proposals he had campaigned on.

We DON"T need another Bill Clinton today.  Bill Clinton ultimately sold out progressives.  He talked a good game, and often failed to deliver for those that got him into office.  He DID deliver, however, for corporate America.

Obama will do the same thing, or will at least be this decade's version of what Bill Clinton did and was.

You delude yourself if you believe the force of Obama's personality and rhetorical skills is somehow going to "unite the country" behind the idea of change, and voila, that's going to be our secret weapon to bring change about.

Listen, buddy.  I already lived through the Clinton years.  Clinton's betrayals and fuck ups during 1993 turned me off to the Democratic Party and to politics for the NEXT EIGHT YEARS.

The last thing this country needs is another Bill Clinton.  We've been down this road before, and I don't think we need to go down the same road again.

Obama may talk a good game, but HE WILL SELL YOU OUT AND BETRAY YOU in favor of maintaining his power, not rocking to boat too much in terms of the way politics operates in D.C., and not really fighting for progressive change.

Mark my words.

JFK was a marvelous and inspiring speaker with a first rate speech writer, Ted Sorenson. He was also a Bourbon Democrat who gave lip service to reform while providing very little.  He made a mess of Cuba, a problem we still live with here in South Florida, and initiated the Viet Nam war to stop communism there before it reached here.  We know how that turned out. He was a corporate Democrat, unable to deliver much to regular folks other than hope that, prior to his death, was turning to dispair.

Lyndon Johnson, and his ability to take a progressive fight to Congress and the American people, accomplished most of what Kennedy talked about. Kennedy, in the fog of history, gets the credit.

The great irony of all of this is the staggering difference between perception and reality. As it turned out, Ted Kennedy has given more to the reality of governing than either of his two brothers.  It is rarely remembered, for example, that RFK's beginning was as counsel to the anti-communisit witch hunter, Joseph McCarthy, who destroyed the lives of some of our most important writers and artists.

Indeed, this article really identifies my nagging problem with Obama. Hearing little substance but the occasional echo of an Edwards program he is compelled to discuss, he appears all sizzle, but little substance. Like JFK was.