Kucinich: Obama Admin Transferring Wealth to the Few

Everyone needs their share of the blame. Everyone.

"Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya.... That is 4 Jake"

Considering definitions, those would all technically be battles (or battlegrounds), or conflicts, for the same war. World War II had how many fronts, but what were the fundamental causes and reasons overall? That's my point.

I disagree. I think by now most people realize that the tactics deployed by Bush (ultimately for other reasons, just masked by the false threat of "terrorism") actually CREATED the terrorist threat to begin with--relating to the CIA term, "blowback." Whether we like it or not, we've created enemies that won't just immediately cease after we've torn through their countries. A gradual withdrawal is necessary, and Obama is riding a humanitarian effort on the back of the terrorist game we're now in, and as I said, committed to.

I am by no means a warmongerer, but I feel I'm being realistic in seeing that those who we've been dropping bombs on for the past decade--after we've ripped culture and innocent families apart--will harbor resentment for generations to come unless we solve (more unanimously and diplomatically) the entire middle eastern situation.

That said, I'm not going to stand selfishly aside while a country's leader rails against his population for wanting real change. The people there are doing what we should be demanding and achieving, here, in a democracy. I respect wholeheartedly their efforts--and there is absolutely no way they could possibly win had the United Nations granted Gadhafi complete sovereignty.

Furthermore, while I too have doubts about the structure of our government, I do believe the president has a great deal of power. The power to connect and unite the people is the most powerful tool at his disposal; we've seen GREAT achievements from presidents strongly urging congress to take action throughout our history. I just cannot succumb to the notion that our president has little policy influence. Furthermore, we've seen practically a complete 180 on our foreign affairs. The power of the lectern is underestimated, and Obama needs to call out the mainstream media on its slants, and begin steering Congress by putting them on the spot.

Sorry Jake, but if you cannot see that Obama is a bigger corporatist than bush then you cannot be helped. As my mother says "Dont argue with fools because from a distance people cant tell the difference."

What has Obama done?

1) Passed "revolutionary healthcare reform" that resulted in the guarentee of every american as a consumer of private healthcare. Was there even a mention of a public option? No! Who wrote this reform? Big Pharma. (Not to mention he promised transparancy in his dealings but then struck this deal with big pharma behind closed doors.)

2) Promised to end the patriot act if given a chance but then when he acutally got a chance he signed an extension on key provisions of it.

3) Involved us in another interventionalist conflict. I hate to break it to you but there are atrocities being commited all over the world... it just seems that our government doesnt seem to care unless there is oil in the ground.

4) Passed "sweeping financial reform" That did absolutly nothing to address the real problems of dirivatives and Credit default swaps.

5) Promised change to the lobbiest culture of D.C but his cabinet looks the same as Bush's.

I could go on and on. I voted for the corporatist pig just like you but now I am really hoping ROn Paul runs for the sake of our future generations.

"Sorry Jake, but if you cannot see that Obama is a bigger corporatist than bush then you cannot be helped. As my mother says "Dont argue with fools because from a distance people cant tell the difference." "

I'm not certain of your purpose in saying this. The assumption that a "person cannot be helped" is dangerous thinking, not to mention it implies that you hold firmly to a belief that you are unwilling to accept the notion that you are possibly wrong. I openly admit that that I may be wrong.
Yes, his health care system is lackluster. But ultimately, whose fault is this? The Republicans. Obama just wanted to pass some level of healthcare--nowhere near what he truly wanted--just to put his foot in the door. There is absolutely not way the healthcare the democrats ultimately wanted would have passed. This was watered down nonsense.

This is all an appellation to republicans. As I have said, his first term has everything to do with bipartisanship. This stance on the patriot act, and the tax extensions were only to prove that the Republican methods are certainly problematic. Had he been stubborn and done what we wanted, he would've lost the senate as well in 2010, as the Republicans would've been even more fired up, and democrats would not see the results of his work for at least another year (in political science, it is understood that the actions of the president are only visible 2-4 years later). Right now, Obama is playing to their ignorance, thinking they can pull his strings--that he's not a threat.

I am quite aware that there are atrocities all over the planet; but then again, one has to start somewhere, no? Wherever we began our humanitarian commitment, we could find economic motives. We're trying to push along this domino effect of democracy as long as we can in the middle east, as it's far better than getting involved directly. That's what I don't understand: People are so fearful of another Iraq that they are more afraid of the ulterior motives than the actual goal overall. This is a step in the right direction for humanity: suppression by international sanctions. Besides, doesn't the oil in Libya go onto the open market, regardless of who has it?

Where I'm weak on understanding, I admit it: I haven't investigated his financial reform policies with any depth; but most likely, it falls under the overall strategy of putting Republicans on the spot, for they certainly cannot clean up their own mess by their methods.

While I am aggravated by his lack of initiative regarding lobbyists, how does his cabinet mirror Bush's? (genuine curiosity, not sarcasm)

Like I said: I could very well be wrong. But just keep the idea in mind as we get closer to 2012. I have a feeling democrats will become more aggressive. In order to do so, we need to commit once more in 2012. Voting for Ron Paul is idealistic, but ultimately, he's not going to get elected. As inconsistent as Ron Paul is as well, I would be willing to give him a shot in 2016.

If you ever want to change the game, you have to play by the rules of the game, first. Guess I'm putting my eggs in one basket.

Excerpt from Chalmers Johnson's, Blowback:

"When America was organizing Afghan rebels against the USSR in the 1980s, he [Osama] played an important role in driving the Soviet Union from Afghanistan and only turned against the United States in 1991 because he regarded the stationing of American troops in his native Saudi Arabia during and after the Persian Gulf War as a violation of his religious beliefs."

I understand that there is a deeper history, going back to at least HW--I was just simplifying without needing to go into further detail. I didn't know how much you knew of the topic.

I recall widespread disapproval of Bush's foreign diplomacy. The world was looking down on us, and to an extent still does when I see sources outside of the country; but when Obama was elected, and to this day, he holds a much higher stature in the eyes of foreign governments than did Bush; personally, I find this somewhat important, as I want a leader urging talks rather than cowboy tactics.

You speak the truth regarding the UN's shortcomings. But didn't UN Secretary General Kofi Annan attempt to create preventative measures in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide? The security council needs abolished--that much is certain, as your concern of our loss of rights in the US will never be challenged until the five superpowers step down. Funny that this setup also occurred during the same time the IMF and World Bank was formed.

The UN needs a drastic overhaul, but I'm telling you, I think it's the only source of hope that we've got in settling foreign issues. It's a broken system, but has potential.

I really don't want to see our country come to a bloody revolution. Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist in this respect, but as I've said, at this point--I've got little to lose with giving Obama another four years to see if my theory is correct--that it was a bait to Republicans. After that, well, your vision won't be far off anyway, and I will have little faith in the president thereafter. In any case, our entire election procedure needs to change. Money cannot influence politics, as no president is getting elected without the support of corporate sponsors--it's just part of the game to play these days.

But hey, at least Obama is resentful toward Citizens United...

So by your definition, we are experiencing World War III. You are well intended but naive. We have been in a constant state of war since 1950. The front changes, the reasons vary but the Defense budget just continues to grow and grow and grow and grow with no indications that it will every change. We are losing all separation of powers and all power the people might have had is now in the hands of an oligarchy.

I have little tolerance for war-drum beaters having server in two of America's stupid wars myself. This is were freedom of speech and I part company. If you are not willing to put your life on the line then stop putting other people in harm's way.

You stated: "I'm not going to stand selfishly aside while a country's leader rails against his population for wanting real change." So my question for you is this ...When do you enlist? When do you send one of your loved ones into the meat grinder for this so-called noble cause? If you are not going to do one or the other of these things YOU ARE IN FACT standing selfishly aside WHILE OTHERS PAY THE ULTIMATE PRICE for your opinion. I say, if you are not willing to fight in a war, then shut the fuck up with the war drumming sir.

Full disclosure: Veteran of Vietnam and Persian Gulf War. 70% disabled due to service connected injuries in your stupid wars. Shut up or ante up.

Very good comment. I agree with you. Thank you.

In 2010 new people were put in the congress. They have not changed anything. If you say it's to soon, yet exspected Obama to bring change in a short time That's not rational.

First, what is with the aggression, "sir"? As someone who is so anti-war, your very nature exacts conflict at even the lowest level of communication--that of a discussion on a message board. Don't imply I'm a war-mongerer when you are name calling and lack every notion of peace within your writing. Regardless, your assumptions are empty.

I appreciate your background, and I appreciate what you've done, regardless of your attitude. I have not enlisted, nor do I have any intention of enlisting, but those reasons are a side-topic to the topic at hand. If you want, I can spend time explaining that, too if you truly insist. I do however have two cousins in the army and navy, in addition to a grandfather in the Marines who fought in the Vietnam and Korean war--and died due to agent orange. Please spare preaching to me, as I have my vantage point as you have yours in this discussion.

You are twisting my words, but maybe it's a fault on my part through word choice, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. My only point with the World War II comment was to explain that the location does not justify labeling it a whole other war. I make no proclamations that this is world war three. "Reasons vary" -- this is a key point that you brought up. As Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex, we have indeed bloated our military--partially thanks to Reagan. I understand the concept of neo-imperialism, of market control, of corporate interest, etc. But this is a separate isolated situation stemming from, since David_H and I were talking about it, HW Bush. Obviously it's just another game started by the neocons, but when Obama truly attempts to do something progressive and to gradually heal the wounds caused by past presidencies, everyone points the finger at him. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm giving him too the benefit of the doubt until the end of his (potential) second term.

The corporatocracy has us so confused as to what is a noble pursuit, and what is a matter of underlying interest--and if you aren't paying very close attention, you'll get sucked into the rhetoric.

"So my question for you is this ...When do you enlist? When do you send one of your loved ones into the meat grinder for this so-called noble cause?"

I was always against joining the military for I do not find any consistency (in terms of leadership, and the public's oversight) or democratic principles within it. I would want to dictate what I wanted to fight for; I would want the right to protest in uniform, and to be a conscientious objector. So look, I'm anti-war, but I understand it's inevitable. I understand that the few with power will oppress the many. The very oligarchs you speak of is the enemy the rebels are facing in Libya; tell me, how can you not support their cause? We need to stop thinking in states, and realize we're on the brink of complete globalization. We're interconnected. They're just as much related to me biologically as my neighbor is.

Like it or not, things have moved to a global scale. No individual country should have the ability to police the world and dictate what is a humanitarian effort and what isn't. This is why the United Nations is so crucial (even given its shortcomings; I'm optimistic though).

UN Sanctions dictate we level the playing field--to stop Gaddafi's oppressive military stance. I don't want our troops there, and if we do, I idealistically believe it should be voluntary peacekeeping missions; for, that's what our intentions are in the first place: peacekeeping, and Gaddafi is the aggressor. Also, do you want to know why we're aiding them? Because a majority of the people have asked for foreign assistance--the key excuse to justify international intervention.

Flipping your argument around, do you suggest to stand on our US soil as fellow humans throw rocks at tanks in a desperate act to obtain their own liberty? Let me ask, would we have achieved our revolution were it not for French aid--even though they had other motives, too? At what point do we intervene? Should we have sat idle as Hitler effectively began genocide? Well come to think of it, I guess we actually were going to.

If you don't believe humanitarian aid should start in Libya, then where should it start? If you don't believe in humanitarian aid for fear of ulterior motives, then while I can understand your perspective, I'm not dropping my objectives in spite of fear.

I want an educated military. Even you admitted you went into "two of America's stupid wars." I assume you did not know what you were getting yourself into at the time. I want to be able engage in peacekeeping missions, not wars; but in order to do this, we once again need international support/approval, the support of the people in the foreign state, and an educated military.

I understand your concern for our growing defense allocations, but that's a bubble needing to be addressed outside of the present and screwed up "war on terrorism" the neocons got us in. By pushing these regime changes in the most peaceful means possible in the middle east, we're attempting to do it as best as we can and slip out quickly. Otherwise, we'll be doing damage control far longer than a decade or two. Yes, Obama is continuing Bush's fight, but he's doing it because he has to; fortunately, he's using a more tactful method.

Likewise, David_H, thank you for the intellectual conversation. I have some new topics to keep me busy through researching thanks to you, specifically foreign affairs with Iran (I have a general understanding, but no depth).

Have a great day, as well.

You said "you do not expect change from WH.There can only be change in congress.If we put same old in congress, nothing will change" I 'm sorry if I misunderstood your quote. since we did change congress. I don't support the GOP because of there views on more taxes for the rich, SS and Medicare. Not bigotry or prejudice, I just believe in what Obama has done so far.He will have my vote. My opinion.

Thank you Professor Kantorek. Like most armchair Generals, you have no idea what you are talking about. War destroys everyone involved with it, whether you call it war, or police actions, or a regional conflict and yes, even if you call it a 'humanitarian cause.' Such public opinion leads directly to public policy; a public policy that kills people and destroys lives and like I said in my original post YOU will sit on the side line while someone else goes in harms way. Keep such thoughts and remarks to yourselves until you are ready to make a personal commitment.

As for any aggressiveness you might read in a blog post from me, it intends you no harm, unlike your justification for the four wars, or theaters if you prefer in the current endless conflict in the middle east. Much like Vietnam and Korea, in the end we will walk away from it without any solution because people like yourself are unable to learn from our past.

Pathetically, you claim credibility on the backs of others having severed. Let them speak for themselves for you have no authority in the matter. You apparently need lecturing to because you think Obama has solutions. He does not. He talks a great game but is not able to walk the walk and in fact has become nothing more than Bush light. Especially in his fear of looking weak on national defense. We are the most bellicose nation in the world at the moment and have been for the last six decades. The policy of intervention outside of WWII has not brought peace to the world nor any other type of solution. It has fed neo-imperialism abroad while our own citizen are homeless [1/3 are veterans], jobless, without healthcare, without collective bargaining, without civil liberties, without justice, with profits going to a handful of people whispering in our ear that there is such a thing as the good war. It is a massive lie my friend. An argument might even be made that even WWII just replaced right wing totalitarianism for left wing totalitarianism. When a nation is ready to overthrow dictatorship, they will rise up and do so by whatever means necessary. Ask the Vietnamese who were willing to fight our technological advantage with bow and arrows. Any support the so-called good guys receive will assist or fail based on the local commitment, not the supporting actors. For once in our history, let someone else do the war-making and give us peace. If YOU feel we should be there, then kit up and get over there.

In short, I will state my point once more, UNLESS YOU are willing to make a commitment to the public policy you advocate, go peddle your passive aggressive arm chair militarism somewhere else.

===
"This story is neither an accusation nor a confession and, least of all, an adventure because death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war..." --Erich Maria Remarque, All Quiet on the Western Front

"credibility on the backs of others having served." -- And I have no authority in the matter? Excuse me, but I am just as much of an American citizen as you are. I assume you were drafted? An action not right in my opinion, but ultimately today--our military is voluntary. I can speak up as much as I want about any war for I hold the same rights as you. You're using an Ad Veracundiam fallacy. I may not have served on the front line--but then again, where does that get you? It's not as if that guarantees that you understand the intricacies of war, only its bloodshed, which I am fully aware of. Facts show the majority of our soldiers in Vietnam didn't know what the christ they were even fighting for--a ridiculous war (all are, in fact). I really am trying to understand and open up discussion, so I'm sick and tired of your badgering me. Don't make assumptions on my knowledge. I'm not your enemy.

"When a nation is ready to overthrow dictatorship, they will rise up and do so by whatever means necessary."

Bullshit. Given your age, you know precisely what happened in Tiananmen Square, how fast Saudi Arabia quelled their protests, with what force North Korea would retaliate against their own population at the mere hint of rebellion. Recently, these Middle Eastern states were lucky enough that communication systems weren't completely censored yet. As someone advocating peace, you're advocating widespread slaughter of civilians when it should be a right they get regime change without bloodshed. You know you're giving a work around answer to conform to your straight-shooting anti-war ideology. But it's not so black and white. There is absolutely no way a dictator with a strong and delusional military is going to lose to a rebel force carrying small arms--UNLESS they are supported logistically by stronger states. Libya's rebel forces were certainly going to be crushed, and then executed in the aftermath. So given this, you still haven't provided me with a solution on how to stop genocide, go for humanitarian/peacekeeping missions, and respond to foreign people's aid.

It's as if you advocate standing by in your house as you watch your neighbor beat the living hell out of his kids with a baseball bat. Hey, stay cozy in your house, because he technically has sovereignty in his house, right? I guess it's not your fight.

You keep reiterating the phrase, "If you're so supportive, then why don't YOU go over there." I find this interesting, as I've always said that I feel every Congressmen should be forced to go on the front lines, and their sons & daughters serve if at the right age. I've always said that if I wasn't willing to put myself on the line IN ADDITION to my entire family for the cause, then it wasn't worth war. Thus with NEARLY every war in American history, I would have backed out. Understand that I clearly do not want our troops over in Libya. There is a strong difference between sending ground forces, and sending drones and launching air strikes--our planes are practically untouchable over there. I'd have more of a risk running down to get groceries after getting on the freeway and getting into a car accident. If I thought it necessary the military needed more drone pilots, or airforce personnel, I'd do it. If I thought I could do more good in the military than I can being a student of Journalism, I would. I don't think either is true.

An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.

There is of course a right to an opinion and to have authority in that opinion. I understand that my position on this matter may in fact be out of line with freedom of speech but whenever anyone rallies public policy requiring sacrifice and then is not willing to sacrifice themselves, then I consider their opinion to be without merit. And I agree that most of America's wars might not have been fought were the standard as high as I think it ought to be -- so be it then. It should be high ... in fact, very high before we spend treasure and lives on it. Libya is not one that qualified. neither does Iraq or Afghanistan.

We see eye to eye on some issues but not on this one. I will go back to the remark you made that triggered my initial response.

You said:
"I'm not going to stand selfishly aside while a country's leader rails against his population for wanting real change."

In fact, you are sir. What you have implied is that we should send in the military, not you of course, but others to be killed, maimed and peace of mind shattered, not to mention the civilians that will likewise be effected. You are naive to think there will not be boots on the ground, mark my words. In fact, we already have CIA boots on the ground. Are they not American lives? Aren't volunteer lives are just as precious as drafted ones? Just because they volunteered to serve the country does not mean that they should be shoved into every regional conflict that happens. I find that attitude to be incredibly callous. Worse, a war with just drones or long range weaponry is the most dangerous kind. Who in their right mind would want war to generate into simply destruction by technology without any human cost? Why would we then shun warfare if we could pursue it without casualties? No sir, drone warfare is as dangerous as thermo-nuclear war in that regard, lest we grow to like the results and become a cancer on this planet. Your remarks about relatively risk-less aviation is also naive giving more credence to you lack of credibility on the subject. Military aviation is inherently a dangerous. [We are not talking about commercial aviation here so spare me the argument about flying verses auto travel. That we can agree with.]

Armed insurrection rarely works under any circumstance without the massive blood shed that you say could be avoided. Civil disobedience has and does work in certain circumstances. Look at Egypt most recently. India under British imperialism in the not so distant past. I grant you that there are situations in which armed conflict may be the ultimate solution but only a Dick Cheney calls for it and then finds other reasons not to commit to that decision while others pay the supreme price. To my way of thinking it is the cowards way.

If you claim Ad Veracundiam because YOU are in fact an expert on the topic I would strongly disagree. I am not claiming to be an expert but I have experienced war and combat. Not only that but experience as a faculty member teaching history of warfare. Still, no claim to the expert status but more credibility than a journalism student and certainly more credibility to advocate war under any circumstance. I know what the costs are, you only imagine what they are. That is my point and once again I will state it for the record [third time]. IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO COMMIT TO THE SACRIFICE THAT WAR [in any form, however brief or noble] REQUIRES, YOU HAVE NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC POLICY THAT PUTS OTHERS [volunteers or not] IN HARMS WAY. This may in fact depart from the USSCs view of the first amendment but so be it. It is a matter of credibility and commitment and bottom line is you are in fact standing by and doing nothing while others are bleeding and making life long sacrifices. If you believe that those sacrifices are necessary then step up to the bar son.

I'm glad the conversation is progressing toward actual discussion rather than wasteful and infuriating personal remarks. I'm going to respond to your reply somewhat in reverse.

I declared an Ad Vracundiam because you suggest that because you've experienced war (I'm still uncertain which branch; but your statements imply you have a background with planes), my points are moot. Our entire discussion isn't based on whether I'm a journalism student, and how much warfare you've made: the inherent point is that if you've truly obtained relevant insights from your experience, that it would be expressed through logic and reasoning in your argument. I don't expect you to take what I say on ethos alone, as I do not with you. This conversation is based on reason and philosophy, and little background. It's an assumption in itself to say one cannot understand the consequences of war without being in it. Is ignorance bliss? Certainly, but I'm not ignorant.

"You are naive to think there will not be boots on the ground, mark my words."

The conversation has just moved to hypotheticals. I told you that I am against ground troops in Libya. When that happens, and don't get me wrong--I understand the possibility--I will be on the same page as you. I consider intelligence agencies an entirely different story--and once again--their sole purpose is to be at the whims of the president. They know the consequences of their career, and we expect the president (and the intelligence agency) to know more about the situation than we do. It's not that I disrespect them--far from it. I'm not entirely fond of them being there--but then--I never said I backed what we're doing 100%. This leads back into my point earlier that every military branch and intelligence agency should be greatly educated before committing themselves to secretive or blatant warfare. An educated, democratic military will inherently reduce the unnecessary conflicts we get ourselves into, and instead focus on those which matter.

I'm not sure I'm following you. First, you say that we cannot be over in Libya because of the inherent danger to our non-existent troops there, but who MIGHT eventually be there. Then you say that the drone-warfare and precision air maneuvers (we eliminated the AA emplacements, I recall) are not perfectly safe; but then you say that drone-warfare and the concept of a war without casualties eliminates any resistance to warfare. You neglect to consider when the war is actually a peacekeeping mission. There is a difference between being the aggressor, and then being the mediator, or third party supporting the justified underdog.

As I said, Egypt and Tunisia were lucky for their military wasn't 100% indoctrinated, nor to the extent as powerful and aggressive--nor were their dictators. Neither was the power of communication realized yet to these regimes. Indeed, one needs only to look at Libya, Behran, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to see the much stronger oppression and put down of similar protests which could not evolve into what Egypt and Tunisia became. Libya is on the edge.

I explained my reasoning behind your question, now repeated three times. You still haven't given me a solution to solve crises abroad. Of course few people will want to intervene with little in their self-interest: it doesn't mean there isn't a moral cause or justification. It just goes back to my neighbor analogy.

I understand that it's a very fine line between self-interest, and a truly noble humanitarian cause. As I said, few will want to intervene; but that was part of the objectives of the UN sanctions currently being deployed. We don't necessarily want to waste human lives (inadvertently to save other humans, just under a different flag) of our country, but we also don't want to stand idle as these people are being oppressed.

Talk to me when you are personally ready to commit to any humanitarian intervention. All else is just mental masturbation on your part. It is people like you that get other people killed.

I do believe the new house was voted in on jobs, most by the tea party. They don't know how to create jobs or they would be coming up with ideas. I know they haven't been there long, but people do believe Obama should have fixed everything that is broken by now..I didn't know who you supported or will support.

If it were possible to sweep the whole place clean, do you think all new would not become corrupt? If it would work it sounds good. In the mean time I am a Obama supporter and will vote for him, but that is my choice as what ever you do is yours.If that makes me prejudice, so be it.

Like it or not, President Obama is the only sane choice for an enlightened electorate...Have a great day.

ditto +^d

Double ditto. And ^ed to the copacetic degree of YA MON !!!

The changes are there to see if one is looking in that direction. And they are qualitative as well. The direction I'm looking in is a gradual movement toward a government that works better for its people.

Good point. I agree. Except for the part where it's not changing. It's definitely not changing fast enough for me, but now that we have global communications we can see more of the insidious workings of the corporate power elite. They can't keep getting away with it because we can SEE more now. Look and you can see where they want you to discredit Obama. They might even pay you to do so.

Very interesting. I like your thinking. You said, "The campaign to discredit Obama is a smokescreen meant to reinforce the notion that we have a choice." You might be giving them too much credit. Maybe the campaign to discredit Obama is just a way to replace him with their man. But maybe I'm not looking deep enough. I'll look around some more.

My pleasure. I can't find anything that backs up the idea that Obama is "their man." Do you have some sources I can look at?

Good comment.

We should boycott MSM, Gates, and all those shitbags. Kucinich voted ^.

I agree Presscore.

ITA, David H. No doubt about it.

Oh, Nobama realy WAS for change. If you got your Email account spammed
by his groupies, the SOB was always holding out his hand for anything you
could donate, $5, $10, $20. Nobama knew the Corporate coffers would get
him erected. He simply wanted to get rich fleecing the suckers he conned
into voting for him too out of greed. Wasn't it the movie Wall Street slogan ?
Greed=good. Nobama even had his cronies use his wife's name to solicit
more money for Nobama's birthday gala event. Compared to Millions, $5 IS
(pocket) change you can believe in. Heh. Nobama learned from Clinton.
And who did Clinton learn from ? Ronald Reagan, the original flim flam man.
Shades of Big 80s. In a world of fractional reserves, fractionaly valued money,
all we've got left is pocket change to deal with compared to the pond scum at
the top whom they've helped steal everything that isn't nailed down. Nobama
is the original $5 footlong. Which even I find strange hearing myself say,
because in 2004 I asked people: " What is the difference between voting for
George W. Bush, and biting into a shit sandwich ? " Answer. No difference.
Because it would only be 4 more years of the same unpalletable crap. So
you see, however cynicly it is, realisticly, Nobama was for YOUR change.
Meaning he wanted to convert your money into his. The scalywag simply
didn't tell you to read the fine print.

Shall we launch the Kucinich for President movement?

Ditto. He shouldn't allow that yutz Nobama to have a 2nd anything.
Nobama's so crooked he couldn't lie straight in bed.

I like Kucinich, but he will not win a primary or run against Obama. I do not believe Obama is a crook. he saved our car industry, gave the middle class tax cuts, as Bush bailed out wall street If you vote republican kiss medicare good bye, SS in the stock market, kiss it good bye. Obama has my vote. I won't make the mistake the people in the states made and change parties. Look what happened to them.