I kind of see what he says as the Democrats' equivalent of Republicans' economic policy. The Republicans want you to believe that if we cut taxes enough, everyone will invest and our economy will be saved. Barack Obama says if you give people enough hope, everyone will unite and our politics will be saved.  The response to both ideas is, "IT IS A LITTLE MORE COMPLEX THAN THAT!"  

The last time we had a president who came into office riding on honesty and hope, and he felt as though he could single-handedly make politics not politics, we had to deal with Reagan and Bush for 12 years afterwards because the country thought Democrats couldn't get anything done.  I believe Hillary is winning by such a large margin for two reasons: she has name recognition and she talks about the middle class.  The thing about this country is that most people think of themselves as middle class, even if they aren't.  Hillary has her own "hope" message out there, but it's directed at the middle class.  Edwards has a "hope" message, but it is mainly focused towards the poor (something I like, but it doesn't help him much).  Barack Obama can't get over how honest and ethical and wise he is.  He needs to get over it and realize this race isn't about the candidates, it's about the voters.  I honestly can't think of one thing he has said about the economy.  He rails on Foreign Affairs and he yells about hope and he cries about judgment and truth and certainly talks non-stop about Iraq, and the people who won't be affected much by this, or any, election will love it, because they don't need health care or getting financial aid.  But he hasn't tried to show the people that he actually cares about them, that he feels their pain.  I think JE and HRC have.  JE is out there digging in New Orleans and setting up Minimum-Wage referendums in the states, and HRC is talking about how she has fought for Democrats for a long, long time, and she has done a good job of taking up the mantle of the Democratic Martyr (essentially saying "Let them rain it on me.  I can take it").  Both of these things are true and attest to how they have actually done something that affects our lives.  Obama hasn't.  Like Prof. David King told us in Politics of Congress last year, "Politics isn't about being someone, it's about doing something."  The well-known and often-said statement in politics is "What have you done for me lately?"  If Obama did something for Americans, I'd like to see it, and I'd probably vote for him because he does inspire me.  He sure does have good experience, experience that shows he is a moral man, with a great character, and many qualities we want in all our leaders.  But what has he done for others that doesn't seem like an opportunity for him to show how great and moral he is?  For example, why does he have to tell me that it was a moral decision for him to community organize rather than clerk for the Supreme Court?  You think I don't see the difference?  It's self-evident; don't say "Look, see, I am really moral, can't you see, please tell me you see it?"  I am sure a lot of people are wondering the same thing: What has Barack Obama done for me lately?  I know JE just got a bunch of states to raise their minimum wage (and that probably brought out some democrats to the polls in 06 to get more dems elected to the house and senate) and I know HRC got millions of kids health care by helping to design the original SCHIP legislation in the 1990s, I know she coauthored the Count Every Vote Act.  JE and HRC have shown that they do things.  Good things.  Obama has shown that he is someone, not that he has done much.

For those who hadn't noticed or fully grasped it, all these "top" candidates are absolutely 100% stage-managed and scripted--they are not genuine individuals.  Obama's Audacity of Hope bullshit is just that--it is an attempt to channel BJ's "A Place Called Hope" from the 1992 election (BJ hails from Hope, Arkansas)

Hillary is corrupt (look up who her #1 individual campaign contributor is) and much too right wing.  To conceal this fact, Obama paints her as a 60s radical--this is exactly what Hillary and the Dem establishment want.  Obama comes off looking like a "traditional values conservative" and Hillary gets to contrast herself to the caricature of a 60s radical, making her also appear more centrist.

I have been saying since the 2004 convention that in 2008 there would be no real question as to who would be running for the Dems--it will be Hillary choosing Obama as veep.  A white woman with a black sidekick--just wait until the pundits start spewing about this "historic" ticket.  We in America are so ashamed of our racism and inequality that apparently we hunger for just such a "historic ticket" regardless of what policies actually lie behind the rhetoric and marketing gimmicks.

Clinton/Obama will simply pick up where Dubya left off by advancing the cause of pre-emptive war in "the right places".  Now that Bush has accomplished half of SOMEONE's mission, Clinton/Obama can slide in and finish the job, with people totally baffled as to why, yet again, and under supposedly new management, our country will be taken down wrong-headed and destructive paths that benefit a very select group of big-money interests.

Come on, kids, are you going to allow this to happen, or are you going to show the "grown-ups" how it SHOULD be done instead?  Where is your youthful idealism?  I have some left at age 32, wanna borrow it?

And you have to resort to censoring my reply why?  Because you're so sure that you're right and I'm wrong?  Ha!  Too funny--what are you afraid of, folks?  The truth?  Having to admit you've been wrong?

Just to clarify, my reply to Raul's post yesterday was "queued for moderation" and never appeared.  here's some of it--let's see if it goes through...  Look who else is a kooky conspiracy theorist like me!

Howard Zinn
Considering how the 9-ll tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9-ll deserve to be investigated and addressed.

Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA
David Ray Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official US government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of US foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods. This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the US) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the US government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the US, caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen.

Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration
Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."

Meria Heller, producer host of the Meria Heller Show (www.meria.net)
David Ray Griffin hits another one out of the park by taking on the left gatekeepers and the mass media for the lies and cover-up called "the official story of 9/11/01," which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public. I highly recommend this book for all thinking Americans.

Robert Baer, former CIA case officer and author of See No Evil and Sleeping with the Devil.
"Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation--not one based on 'confession' extracted by torture--we will never know what happened on 9/11. David Griffin will never let this go until we get the truth."

ALA's CHOICE
David Ray Griffin, author of 30 books and professor of philosophy of religion and theology, emeritus, systematically challenges the principal official and semi-official defenses of the standard account of 9/11 events....Throughout the book's 391 pages, including 61 pages of references, Griffin exhibits exceptional skill in detailed scholarly analysis. He concludes with a call to the reader, and all of us, to bring these issues into full public discussion and to expose the truth about 9/11, whatever it may be. Indeed, such "truth" has certainly not yet been revealed due to extensive gaps and contradictions in official theories that he documents in detail.

Book Description
By virtue of his previous four books on the subject, David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement, which rejects the official conspiracy theory about 9/11. Although this movement was long ignored by the US government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon." It is not surprising, therefore, that the government and the corporately controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it.

In the present book, David Ray Griffin shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked. Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of Debunking 9/11 Myths (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Griffin riddles recent reports and stories put out by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine as well as a new book by the chairmen of the 9/11 Commission. He also responds to criticisms of the 9/11 truth movement by left-leaning and Christian publications--which one might have expected to be supportive.

Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly leveled against critics of the official theory-that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith-actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory.

This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement's central claim-that 9/11 was an inside job-remains the only explanation that fits the facts.

About the Author
David Ray Griffin is professor of philosophy of religion and theology, emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, where he remains a co-director of the Center for Process Studies. His 30 books include The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), 9/11 and American Empire (2006, with Peter Dale Scott).