I think the argument would be stronger without the inflammatory invective and hyperbolic comparisons.

Fascism is a very real and pervasive threat to our government and to both parties (having become almost the mainstream ideation of the non-theocratic Republicans largely under the euphemism 'privatization'). I think Hillary has sold out to those influences.

But the comparisons you make would be an enormous stretch even applied to Dick Cheney.

There used to be the criticism of government (generally due to fiscal waste) that 'government should be run like a business'.

While governments should be fiscally responsible, running it 'like a business' is flawed thinking.

The point of a business is to make a profit and avoid losses. The point of a government is to provide consistent infrastructure (roads, reasonable division and distribution of radio frequencies, etc.) and protect people from those who would otherwise impose their will via force (be it on the scale of a burglar or the scale of another country invading, or the scale of a business polluting the environment or making lead-tainted toys or importing toxin-contaminated wheat gluten).

Protecting people is not a 'for profit' endeavor--if it were, there would be no need for taxes because the government would be able to generate enough revenue from its own operations (tolls on infrastructure?) to support its expenses (like a business). Now contemplate that in light of the Bush administration and efforts to 'privatize' various governmental functions...as I've seen stated elsewhere on the web, "we always socialize costs and privatize profits".

Government should be run like a government. Fiscally responsible, yes, but driven by pursuit of the good of people, not for profit and not for the profits of corporations. Because corporate good is not always good for the people, and the 'trickle down' theory of economics doesn't work.

Dean is first.

265.

Blacks have started going down to 'our' lake -- as a result I don't think 'we' go down there anymore. I don't go b/c of the gators.

Anni,

That's sad. Does that translate into meaning you are a racist?

Excellent blog Tom Miller.

Hillary Clinton doesn't represent too darn many of us.

Biden, Dodd and Richardson has all bowed out of the primaries for good reason -- they have no reason to spend any more money on it or to imped any who have a real chance of winning the primary. Those boils down to one - Obama.

That is why I wish Edwards, as much as I admire him for his efforts, would also bow out of this race. It is a two person race now, he can't win and he is running out of money to boot. Good team players will step aside. The Obama campaign would have a much easier shot at beating Hillary Clinton, who would be just more of the same.

Edwards has a right to stay in the race and it is his decision alone to make. I am simply stating my opinion.

I should have written, "that boils down to one Progressive - Obama.

4.  Well, I disagree.  An election is not a team sport or even a pugislitic contest.  The election process belongs to the voters and voters deserve a choice.

I'm hoping to seem some growth in the candidates.  Did I tell you there were 15 candidates on our ballots? 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/115253/789/632/435671

Is this the new thead?

Sorry, Tom, I knew you were quoting and in my frustration at trying to get at least one post thru, I neglected to be specific.  Thanks for pointing that out.

If I had the 3 cands in front of me, I would ask this question.  Do you draw any distinctions between spiritual and religious?  IMO the two are universes apart; religion being a belief in a particular mind set, following certain dogma, sometimes excluding other religions, and often claiming a hotline to some god or other, if they are orthodox.  OTOH, spirituality encompasses Everything, Everyone, Everyother.  It sees us all as family, it is universal, non-judgmental and doesn't claim to know much of anything and treasures others and the earth. Certain religious people are prone to killing for some reason.  Truly spiritual people usually aren't, in my experience.

I'd like a spiritual prez .

Spiritual is a way of Being, of Living in Self-Referral (Chopra discusses this)  Religious is a way of Other-Referral.

The spiritual path knows that "when the wind blows, the grass must bend."  I hear people on the religious path saying that if the wind blows, attack.   These are generalizations, perhaps good ones, perhaps not; but I do think we need a lively discussion in this country about the differences.  I'm not sure who would start such a discussion.  Perhaps just ordinary people.

Never mind.

Oddly enough, Hillary Clinton got a solid majority of votes in the working class, blue collar parts of NH and Barack Obama is being tagged as the darling of the Starbucks and tweed jacket crowd.

sea--I expect that self-referral is paired with self-directed.  Other directed people consider the self-directed to be selfish--not a good thing in their book.

Being directed by an other relieves one of being responsible for one's mistakes and not making mistakes or not being wrong is what they aim for.  i expect there's a fundamental insecurity there.  Where it comes from, I don't know. 

265.  Anni wrote:

Blacks have started going down to 'our' lake -- as a result I don't think 'we' go down there anymore. I don't go b/c of the gators.

************************** 

Joan in FL responded: 

Anni,

That's sad. Does that translate into meaning you are a racist?

************************

Joan, read closely, please. 'we' meant whites in general.  Anni doesn't go cuz of the gators.  She's no racist.  It's important to read what's actually written.

ANNI IS NOT A RACIST. 

Sitka, I think not. JE is talking about realism.  We're are divided, both into class and into race.  He's pointing to the truth

read closely, please. 'we' meant whites in general.

I picked up on that. 

ABC is covering controversial comments about MLK and Johnson.

That lake thing is all about white entitlement.

Yes, Sitka, but not everybody here is looking thru the same lenses.

ABC is covering controversial comments about MLK and Johnson.

Hillary put her own foot in it. 

Yes, Sitka, but not everybody here is looking thru the same lenses.

I just look at the historical record. Dark lenses are what's needed to not see it. 

Monica wrote:

Where it comes from, I don't know.

Let me guess.  The OT bible. 

Jesus actually tried to teach "self-referral, self-directed.

We grew up to believe that to be selfish is awful, a no no.

In reality, it's the only way to be happy, health and help others to become so.

We have everything bass-ackwards, starting with organizied. religion. 

Our politics are also bass-ackwards. 

20.  Yes, but that has to be taught.  No child arrives with that mind-set.  Beabies don't consider themseves inferior, though some do go through a shy or cautious phase.  (None of mine, LOL)

Beabies s/b babies  --not short for beanie babies.  Which are popular, why?

Why are Hill and Bill making gratuitous comments about MLK and Johnson and complaining about the media coverage of Obama? 

Soon people are going to be reminded of Sister Soulja and begin feeling sorry they excused that one. 

...Hitler and  'death'..... I think I'll wait for the next topic....

Yes, Monica, taught of course.  The teaching often most pronounced is the religious one.  And of course, kids pick up attitudes and lotsa non verbal stuff from parents, relatives and even kindergarden peers.

But still, the basic tenets are taught from birth and picked up thru osmosis.  I think children, like animals, are very intuitive, even as babies.   And by 6, they're pretty much formed, including opinions that will be held for life. 

"Made a searching a fearless inventory of ourselves" is probably the best advice I've ever heard and taken.  It means that we go way back to childhood and search for patterns and belief systems.  It's daunting becuz you uncover the shadow and so projection is seen for what it is - not taking responsibility for your own *stuff.*   It's so daunting that the vast majority won't even try it.  And so we run around criticizing, projecting, judging, attacking, hurling anger.    If I acted this way with friends, I wouldn't have any. 

Putz acts this way.  He has no friends except those who are just like him.  Olmert is a good example. The puppeteer is another, altho maybe they're not friends, but mutually using each other.

Well, I've been trying to write something on

Security

Secrecy

Sovereignty

= Subservience 

and looked up the quotation from Fanklin about giving up liberty for security.  Except now it turns out he didn't say it.  Instead----

Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.

I think I like that even better. 

Eyelids drooping.

Even Lou, who used to have a good thing or two to say, is freaking out.  People are becoming enraged, disjointed.  We are eating our own.  Look at this blog - calling others racist. 

I said the other day that the country is not ready to be forced into nominating either  a white woman or a black man.

Who's pulling the strings behind the scenes?  The logical choice to unite us is Edwards and the string pullers are stopping him.  Actually, the dem voters are disavowng him. 

 This will end up playing into repug hands and sweep them to victory.  IMO

Time for a cool change!  Al Gore 

It just never ends, does it?

FOCUS | Federal Officials Accused of Anthrax Case Leaks
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011208Z.shtml
David Willman, writing for The Los Angeles Times, reports: "Attorneys for the former Army physician who was branded a 'person of interest' in the deadly 2001 anthrax mailings named three federal officials Friday who they said leaked investigative details that harmed their client."

Looks like putzie met a match who he can't push around. 

Pakistan Warns US on Attacking Al Qaeda on Its Own
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011208A.shtml
Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, reports: "President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan warned in an interview published Friday that any unilateral attacks by the United States against Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in his country’s tribal areas would be treated as an invasion."

It seems the only way a candidate can win anymore is by asking the better candidate to get out of the race or by spreading lies about the other...or both.

The media has been doing some disorting and the other campaign has been making false accusations. The media has been splicing comments to fake accusations on Hillary and Bill.

Just like the "Fair Tale"incident and accusing Bill of making a racist remark. Gee, it seems they didn't play the entire comment and it was that Obama's claim on the War in Iraq is a Faair Tale, with a Keithie on Countdown playing the entire comment and clarifying the statement.

And too on MLK, Hillary was talking about what Obama said about MLK and RFK.

If the BO campaign is going to ask and cause such divisiveness in this underhanded way, I don't see how he could possibly not upset more than half of electorate as he claimed.

If someone should bow out of the race, maybe it should be the most divisive and the Corporatist, like Obama, so then we have a clear choice of one Corporatist, Hillary and the Populist for the People, John Edwards. Now there is a clear choice.

I'm not so sure that people are calling each other racist but I do still feel the sting of audrey inferring that I did that to her, when it was actually someone else she had me mixed up with - and after pointing that out to her via private DFA Link email I would think that, someone who is sensitive to such situations, would at least take the time to offer a public apology.

Saying that she knew I supported Obama by my "attacks" was another misstatement by her - still no apology about that either.

I've had plenty of opportunities to attack here over the past four years, one most recently, but it's not worth it. But if I do, I will surely apology.

THAT is what has been missing here lately - owning up to ones mistakes. Instead, we have people leaving because they are not getting support for their bad behavior and others pleading for their return, no strings attached. Not even asking for some civility if they do return.

Seems to be a new front thread

Sydney Blumenthal gets nailed for aggravated DWI (but no mention of it before last Tues.'s primary--funny how that happened, huh)?

I'm surprised that NH doens't mandate blood test (BAL levels), vs. breathalizers.

Driving 70 mph in a 30 mph zone is beyond dumb, BTW--esp. in New England.

He's the idiot who covered for Big Dog (by intimiding and smearing AR's straight poopers), re: series of marital infidelity coverups. Long before "...*THAT* woman," Lewinsky.

http://tinyurl.com/2bq6j3

Any self-identified feminist who tolerates marital infidelity & compulsive lying for decades does NOT have a morsel of my empathy (and she set a toxic modeling behavior example for young women--esp. Chelsea).

Throw his ass out the door--I respect women who do that, vs. this "stand by my man" crap. Beyond disgusting.

And I certainly don't want her leading the country as the 1st enmeshed female President...zero boundaries.

Low income/high school educated women in the NH who voted for Billary do not necessarily possess the economic means to leave unhealthy relationships (or to invest in a damned good shrink or a post-secondary degree, for that matter); however, Clinton did/does options to split.

She pandered to those women, as they can certainly identify w/unappreciative men in their daily lives; and of people incessantly demanding of their time.

The "Iron My Shirts" protestors added fuel to their ambivalence to render whatever agency-oriented behavior which was available.

Going for "gender" was their choice. It was more symbolic of their daily lives; as Clinton certainly has nothing in common w/that class of women (I'd like to know how much their housekeepers in upscale Chappaqua are paid, bennies--if any, and of which racial-ethnic group they belong to).

Ahem.

Conversely, Billary claims that her "faith" got her through it all. Pass me an effin' super-sized barf bag.

She'll mention it again in the future--esp. in S.C.

Domestic violence runs rampant in the AA demographic group--she's a con artist...well beyond an opportunist (and both need to address welfare deform, too).

"Motherhood" is no longer a "countable work activity" under TANF.

It's a Clintonian carryover after RayGun's nonexistent 'coded' Chicago "Welfare Queen." 21st century subjugation of low income women...similar to slavery; and domestic servants (who weren't allowed to live outside w/their own children, in their own homes; and had few occupational choices other than live-in domestic servant status).

...at the discretion of the Euro-white upper SES bitch's rule.

See anything written by Alice Kessler-Harris, re: lives of AA women (comprehensive historical perspective):

http://tinyurl.com/ypajtf

Clinton's a dichotomy of contradictions.

Combine the right wing media echo chamber with threads like this
and, if the sympathy vote is decisive,
it's Clinton II in 2009.

Even Clinton will be better than any of the Republicans.

If she's nominated (likely, because her name is the only one familiar to those who will vote but who aren't paying attention to politics--the media is focusing on the 'horse race' which doesn't make it easy for such folk to distinguish between candidates) we will have to rally behind her because the alternatives (the Republican nominee +/- NY's mayor Blomberg) are worse.

Yes we can hope for Edwards or Obama but *any* of those who are running (or ran) on the Democratic side would be better than what we have, and better than what the Republicans are offering.

Monica Smith, have you read John Dean's (not to be confused with Howard!) book "Conservatives without Conscience"? He makes a lot of reference to psychologist Altemeyer's work on the psychology of 'authoritarian followers'--the kind of people who prefer to be within hierarchies and yield decision-making powers to 'the authorities', thereafter following them with unwavering loyalty. I think it might be helpful to your writing effort given the interests you mentioned.