A vote for McKinney is a vote for the Green Party, the best chance this country has at a genuine third party. Even if McKinney doesn’t win (she won’t), your vote will have been well spent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiUUm9eSZII

I wont vote for Obama either. Too many promises - not enough substance.

I am also no longer a Democrat -The DNC favoritism of Obama left me no choice but to leave the party.

So that’s a big issue. And there are a lot of women in this country who — there’s two issues here. One is one candidate is ahead and one is not. That happens all the time in primaries, and you get over that. What you don’t get over is deep wounds that have been inflicted on somebody because they happen to be a woman running for president of the United States.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does Barack Obama get over it by choosing Sen. Clinton as a running mate?

DEAN: We don’t know. But I do believe that the issue of sexism in this country has to be addressed.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19668.htm

The thrust of my remarks was slanted to appreciating the unfortunate reality that, because the underlying system is corrupt, a ‘pure’ movement or candidacy doesn’t have a chance practically speaking. This was not a moral position rather a pragmatic observation.

Obama keeps giving little hints that he operates from outside most normal assumptions. He also consistently delivers the message that he wants to change the conceptual paradigm.

Yes, he is beholden to a certain extent to the military-industrial-congressional complex that has been essentially ruling the US national dynamic since the Civil War. But again, no candidate can even get to being taken seriously by the establishment - which controls so many of the behind-the-scenes levers - unless they become part of that establishment. He is not running as a revolutionary, rather a paradigm-shifter.

I am encouraged by the tone of his speeches and moreover the tone of the content, which is reasonable and again, tends to leap above the immediate entanglements to suggest a broader vision to be applied.

These are dynamics he can only hint at in general terms. On specifics, he is a central-left typical Democrat but now of the post-Clinton era. For example, he is pro private-sector health care. I, for example, think anything other than a single payer system which works great in most developed countries is a form of pandering to corporate interests and that’s exactly how I view both his and Hillary’s plans. Copouts, basically. On the other hand, nobody could get in to pass single payer health care so it’s irrelevant as an issue. Not going to happen.

Anyway, I repeat what I said above, namely that I am beginning to think that he is just sneaky and devious enough to perhaps be far more progressive than people can right now envisage because he is in the thick of becoming more esconced within the establishment as part of winning a campaign.

As far as checking, we all have our own methods. I prefer listening to first-hand sources, i.e. the candidate him or herself. In the case of the Reverend Wright flap, for example, I just listened to the man’s sermons - those I could find suitable for a dialup user. The one I heard about ‘god damn america’ was very good, even though I am no Christian and find the way they preach overly emotive and weird. But the points he made were solid. How many preachers have the guts to point out that Pearl Harbour was a phony pretext and suchlike. Although Obama is now denouncing him - which I think is a mistake - the fact that he was listening to someone like that is, I think, a very positive sign no matter how much furore is generated in the mainstream cultural gutter.

Obama’s “great speeches” are nothing but political gamesmanship. “Great speeches” do not change things. Especially when they promise to follow the world of Poppy Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Here’s Obama –

“The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush’s father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan….”

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=106059

Yeah, he tosses JFK in there to try to get the deluded to see JFK’s policies as identical to Reagan’s or Poppy Bush’s policies. Any astute student of history knows that’s a lie — JFK was against interventionism, against militarism, and against every aspect of the types of policies used by Reagan and Poppy Bush.

Back to the drawing board — Obama follows Zbigniew Brzezinski, who follows Dubya Bush and Dick Cheney.

“Great speeches” that don’t result in changed policies aren’t leadership. They are continuation of the status quo ante. Leaders lead, they don’t make excuses for what amounts to doing nothing.

Obama is a fraud, and nobody should be duped by his fraudulent behavior.

Amen, brother. That is what I am asking — to see things independently, to investigate FOR ONE’S SELF what this Barack Obama character is all about.

And when you investigate him — don’t just look at what the New York Times or Mother Jones or NPR or PBS has to say. Don’t just examine the Obama campaign rhetoric. Don’t just default to his accusers, either. Don’t blindly follow what John McCain or Hillary Clinton says about him.

Find out his background ON YOUR OWN with your own standards of what is objective. But when you do so, really be objective. Recognize that Barack Obama has lots of rich people and businesses supporting him, and that these people and businesses will slant things to favor him.

Recognize that John McCain and Hillary Clinton will exaggerate his bad points.

But most of all — look at what Barack Obama is about.

You will see that he is a Bush-Cheney Agenda supporter.

I’m trying to decide between voting for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney - it’s interesting to have TWO terrific candidates to vote for this year!