Here in Illinois Obama has not come though for us on his promises or supports the issue we care about.  He voted for Bush appointees, etc.  He helped Emanual defeat anti-war Progressive Democratic candidates.  He wouldn't support them. He supports Faith Based programs (which violate Separation of Church & State).  He is a globalist and wants the WTO to control trade (violates the Constitution for Congress and the people to control trade not behind closed doors by "trade representatives" or our President\VP).

He talks a good speech and is an opportunist.

Obama doesn't have a chance of winning in the Conservative Midwest or the South.  It's a pipe dream by Obama supporters.

 Hillary Clinton and Obama aren't much different in their agenda which is very anti-worker (pro-globalism). One is a man and the other a women.  They both don't have a chance to win in the election but the media and DLC force them to the front as winners before we even vote in the primaries. Rupublicans support them like Lieberman because they know their members won't vote for them.

The bottom line is Democrats should question any candidate for office as to their agenda and if it fits our beliefs for a democracy. They should uphold the Constitution,Bill of Rights, and the laws (requirement for both parties when you think about it).  Why not support the American worker?

Did anyone ask those questions during the debate?  I would have asked them first.  

Biden: Well, I think it probably is because social mores change. But look, Tim, I don’t think the government can dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions. But government does have an obligation to guarantee that everybody has, every individual is free of discrimination. And there’s a distinction. You and I talk—I shouldn’t say this—I think we did—talked about Meacham’s book, the “American Gospel.” And I, anticipating you asking me this, I wrote a quote from his, from his book that I think sums it up. He says, “The American gospel is that religion shapes the life of the nation without strangling it.” That’s where I think—that’s how we have to view these very difficult decisions. I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but I think, on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct.

there are still lots of long-time members who might remember you.

Ron Paul has no legitimate support from either progressives or liberals. He is essentially, a fundie-wacko Libertarian. His positions sound pretty good until you really dig up his past and all the creepy-crawlie stuff pours out. His basic stances are not acceptable to very many of us.

Kucinich has said all the right things. Then he goes on and does very little to make things happen. That is one of the reasons people do not flock to his banner in large numbers.

He does not, quite obviously, have the foggiest notion of how to run a campaign, much less solve the problems of this very broken and divided country.

One example(recent)is the whining and complaining by both Dennis and his zealot-like brownshirts concerning the Iowa debacle.

Harkin gave a steak-fry fundraiser in Iowa. It was a private affair. Some candidates were invited, some were not. We don't have the details at this point. If this gathering was important to Dennis, the simple mailing of a $30 check would have gotten him a ticket and he could have been there.

The AARP sponsored a debate. All candidates were invited by registered letter early in July. There were some requirements that all candidates had to comply with in order to participate. One of these requirements was that they have an office in the state and that the office was staffed.

The Kucinich campaign did not respond to this letter. They did not have an office in Iowa that was staffed. They did not meet the other few simple requirements. Dennis has done much screaming, wailing, and accusing the AARP of excluding him because he neither answered their invitation nor complied with the few simple requirements.

His zealot followers have taken up the cry of censorship, discrimination, and so on on many boards across the net. When confronted with the reality, they tend to believe that Denial is only a river. In other words, Dennis should get a free pass when no one else does. Funding is not the problem. Dennis had funds to travel to Syria and to Hawaii but spent no funds, did no campaigning in Iowa, and has no office or staff in that state.

There are many reasons that many support him. There are reasons why so many more do not.

This all comes down to simple choice does it not?

A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.

Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623

The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.

If a candidate would not personally gut Bin Laden, then he has no hope of being elected.

The largest military campaign in human history should have brought us Bin Laden's head in Afghanistan and delivered a devastating blow to a complicit government (Taliban) with a RAPID return to peace and normality.

Instead, Conservatives brought us:

---an anemic war in Afghanistan and a retreat from Bin Laden.
---a clusterf*** in Iraq chasing oil money. (They fail there even by their own standards).
---a depleted National Treasure from Historic Surpluses.
---etc.

We were not mildly attacked on Sept. 11th. The world needed to be shaken to the core by a U.S. response BUT remain clear that true American Values would NOT change. This was critical not for simple high minded moral reasons but to maintain the superstructure of civilization which is the only final defense against terrorism (and lawlessness).

--------------------------------

In addition to the above, what you suggest by demanding the crossing of "t"s and dotting of "i"s with respect to Bin Laden, misses the point of Bill Mahr's question. It is akin to asking a candidate what they would do if someone raped and butchered their child and accepting a clinical response. I can tell you what I would do: I would kill the evil bastard. (For those who always shoot from the ivory tower hip, I would quickly add that what I would do and what a civilization should do, are two separate questions, but voters better know you're human first).

----------------------------------

I have noted before that Bush should be impeached and found guilty with NO further evidence needed simply because: The reckless endangerment of our military, our military defense posture, and our National Treasure rises to the level of a "misdemeanor".

Bush's proposals were outlandish on their face. There where possible advantages to invading Iraq. These were the only things touted in the lead up to War. Unfortunately there are possible advantages to invading Canada, Ireland, etc. but the disadvantages loom so large that it would be reckless to do so. Yeah, we'll gain a quick, cheap, loving Democracy in Iraq while still achieving our other defense goals. Right.....

So why do I mention this?

---Bush should be Impeached for his broad recklessness with our Money, our Soldiers, our Military Defense Posture, Amerian Values, innocent civilians, etc. His heavy handedness has lost us Bin Laden's head, generated new genres of terrorists, killed perhaps a million that did not have to die.

---Kucinich (as you have presented the case) would behave recklessly via a light handedness.

If we can't agree on a major U.S. response to 911 then perhaps we can't agree at all. If we can however, lets be clear that what happened on Sept. 11th was of mythic proportions. It was a moment in time when those very few who would take credit for the acts, should expect to be the focus of our ire.

well, if you really respect bill maher you would know that the question was sarcastic...!!! The bush administration put bin laden's head on 9-11...he's mocking him!

that covered the collapse of the towers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html

Click on the slide show,particularly the section
entitled 'collapse' to see how this happened.

From an engineering standpoint, this makes sense.

Now I'm no longer disappointed I don't have HBO because I see he is a sell out like the others when it really comes down to the truth.  Of course, he is intelligent and he knows who writes his check so he goes along to get along and then he throws in his callous insensitivity like Howard Stern and the public love that.

How stupid does he think we are?  Anyone can look at those buildings and yes, see plane hit and fall down. Maybe that's how he justifies...he speaks truth and then just go into O'REilly mode.....for the next layer...

Only on the HISTORY CHANNEL, will you see the same two tired reporters with no credibility from Popular Mechanics try to discredit people who have extremely legitimate questions.

Anyone with a brain would know that those buildings were built to withstand plane impact and that the only way to fall like they did is if there was explosives which were reported by William Rodiguez who I heard live in Tampa and then Sept 8 on American Perspectives on C-Span.   He is the famous hero janitor who was last man out of building and reports how he and at least 20 other witnesses testimony was not included in official 911 investigation and that is when he became an activist.

If you realize this, then you find out the building security was taken over by a cousin of George Bush in last few months and then mysteriously floors were shut down.  One of the survivors reports how his bank had to close for the first time ever but that's never reported either.   For explosives to be planted, it would have had to happen weeks in advance.  What about building 7?  This would be first time in history that a few little fires cause a building that has all important Enron, and other documents...can't remember all..

The problem is no one wants to see.  I don't want to see or know this.  It has taken me years to hear over and over and read this and that to believe this and yet it is so devasting to think about the implications, it is easier to just forget and deny.

Bill Maher is funny, our government isn't.  It's sickeningly corrupt.  The problems begin when we don't listen, don't investigate, don't question, and numbly vote for whoever can convince us they aren't as corrupt as the other candidates.  We still believe in "We the People..."  Our government isn't about citizens anymore.  It isn't an honor for these people to represent our states in Congress or the Senate, it is a very lucrative position for them to make huge personal gain.  It's not like jury duty, where you serve, and make the best judgment on a case and go home when it's over.  Our politicians don't expect to serve one term, and then go back into the private sector.  They intend to be in the "public service" their entire working life, and retire with the benefits they give themselves, PLUS the fortunes they make from years and years of screwing the citizens of this country while "serving" us.  They've been serving us lead paint, e-coli, filthy air and water, no health care for when their inept policies finally do make us sick, and fantastic pharmaceuticals that few can afford, along with a generous dose of imported oil, for years and years, and we are just now getting the picture.  They're all in on it!  Bill Maher points out how sadly stupid we continue to be, and he's right.  How do we get our government back after we've let thieves and liars take it away?  Damned if I know, but Barrack Obama might just be the ticket.  His "inexperience" may mean he's less corrupt, and GOD, ALLAH, or whoever your higher power of choice is, the mainstream politicians don't want anyone in there to fuck it up for everyone else by using ethics, and honesty to end the bullshit going on in Washington. 

I so agree with your comments about Bill Mahr.  What a waste of a good mind.  He is a sell out and that's all there is to it.  None of it is funny anymore but I find that Jon Stewart and Colbert do present a lot of truth in their own way and own world of satire. I think they do pretty good in the short amount of time they have.  I really liked what Jon said in response to Chris Mathews new book, "life is a Campaign."  You could probably find that on the comedy channel website from this week.

  Keith Olberman also goes out on a limb to tell more than most other mainstream news does as well.  We just can't expect to get all of it on the mainstream when it is owned by six corporations so we must look to other reliable on-line sources and basically self-educate and hopefully pass on what we learn.  However, I'm rather disappointed with this website because when I responded to someone comments about Bill Mahr and 911, I really got jumped on for being some lunatic for questioning.

Also, Grinch didn't take me seriously telling people Ron Paul is gathering a lot of grassroots support and this week they made more than McCain (5 million) and this was brought up on PBS last night so I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss his supporters.  I'm going to go back to look at that discussion under David Swanson's blog but maybe there should be a forum to address how his libertarian views differ from Democrat and while they may have some overlapping agreement, there are fundamental differences and do his supporters jumping on the bandwagon realize what they are signing on to?