Skip to main content

Politics ain’t beanbag, they like to say. The last month of the primary has more than proven that old saw. We've even seen Godwin's Law move out of the Internets and into the campaign. We've seen identity politics used in a way the Democratic party should never use it, on both sides of the race. The invective has flown but good between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and while we're seeing a welcome respite in the surrogate poo-flinging since the last debate, the frenzy of Super Tuesday and the fact that this primary is going to extend well beyond it lead me to expect we haven't seen the last of it.

But for what? Here’s one political junkie that could use a break, or at least would like to see a little bit more fighting over substance and a lot less warring among proxies over guaranteed attention-getting flashpoints. Next Saturday, I'll walk into my precinct caucus having to make a decision about which candidate I'm going to stand with. At this point, I might as well go with a coin toss, because there are a few things I want to know about these candidates, and so far I’ve not heard the answers I need.

I don't lay the blame for this entirely at the candidates' feet. They're doing what they know best, what all politicians do--gearing a campaign for the traditional media. They're feeding the beast of predictable and prosaic "reporting" and "analysis" in the "he said, she said" vein. Those giants of mediadom--Tim Russert, Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzer put them in the hot seat and ask them . . . what? The same questions about the same votes about the same people about the same minor policy differences over and over and over again.

But the media can't take all the blame. We've ended up with the two most politically talented candidates, undoubtedly, but they are also the most cautious, most constrained, most politic of the group that began this race all those months ago. That's what usually happens in politics. Most politicians are not too comfortable having their necks stuck out. But, the thing is, this election demands far more than politics as usual. We are in the midst of the worst American administration in history. We're in the middle of the worst foreign policy debacle the nation could imagine. We've seen an unprecedented power grab by the executive that has left the Constitution in tatters. We have a Congress that let it happen. We have crippling debt and a failing economy in the midst of a global economic crisis. The realities of 2008 demand far mare than politics as usual.

While both candidates have a great deal to recommend them--and I say that sincerely, they are both brilliant, talented and committed public servants--they have yet to show this voter that they recognize the breadth, depth, and scope of the challenge one of them will face when sitting down behind that big desk in the Oval Office on January 20, 2009. They are both solid progressives, despite whatever their detractors in the comment threads might say. The last debate showed that they are both Democrats and that they both have a progressive vision. But my question is how far that vision extends.

There are very serious questions this country faces, questions that have been hanging out there for a while. Five long years ago, on March 15, 2003, Howard Dean began a list of those question when he galvanized the Democratic base and ignited a movement with a speech at the California State Democratic Convention. The "What I want to know" speech is the one thing I constantly hear fellow Democrats reference when they tell me about gaining or regaining their passion for politics. Because he was the first person to use a huge public forum to ask the questions that were burning in our minds.

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq?

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting tax cuts, which have bankrupted this country and given us the largest deficit in the history of the United States?

What I want to know is why the Congress is fighting over the Patient’s Bill of Rights? The Patient’s Bill of Rights is a good bill, but not one more person gets health insurance and it’s not 5 cents cheaper.

What I want to know is why the Democrats in Congress aren’t standing up for us, joining every other industrialized country on the face of the Earth in providing health insurance for every man, woman and child in America.

What I want to know is why so many folks in Congress are voting for the President’s Education Bill-- "The No School Board Left Standing Bill"-- the largest unfunded mandate in the history of our educational system!...

I want my country back! We want our country back!

In the five years since Howard Dean stood in front of that electrified crowd and started asking those questions--finally!--so many of us had, we still don’t have answers to most of them. And now we have more questions, we have harder questions. When Howard Dean stood on that stage five years ago we didn't know about Abu Ghraib. We didn't know about warrantless wiretapping. We didn't know about Addington and Yoo and Gonzales conspiring in Dick Cheney's office to make us a country that tortures. Katrina hadn't happened. Dean's list of questions look almost prosaic compared to the questions that face us now, five years later--questions that the next two or three presidents are going to have to grapple with, questions that our traditional media just won’t be asking.

Since they aren't asking, I will. Here are few things that I want to know from you, Senators Clinton and Obama.

What I want to know is that you will renounce the doctrine of preemptive war.

What I want to know is that you will get our troops out of Iraq before the end of your first term in office, without leaving permanent bases.

What I want to know is that you will find bin Laden, that you will take seriously the threat that al Qaeda still poses and that you will know where and how to fight them.

What I want to know is that you will take care of the men and women who gave their all for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, that you will end the shameful lack of funding, services, and treatment these brave men and women face when they come home, and that you will ensure they get the help that they not only need, but deserve.

What I want to know is that you will unequivocally renounce the use of torture and will agree to abide by the Geneva Conventions and international treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war.

What I want to know is that you will shut Guantanamo and every secret prison down as soon as humanly possible, and that the detainees in them will receive justice.

What I want to know is that you will end the warrantless and illegal surveillance of American citizens by our intelligence agencies.

What I want to know is that you will hold any corporation that aided government in illegally spying on American citizens accountable to the rule of law.

What I want to know is that your cabinet and executive offices will not be stacked with bumbling ideologues and cronies.

What I want to know is that you, your Vice President and every one of your executive officers will be subject to the rule of law, just like everyone else.

What I want to know is that you will respect Congress as a co-equal branch of government.

What I want to know is that you will never attempt to circumvent Congress's laws with signing statement.

What I want to know is that you appoint qualified Supreme Court justices who believe in the rule of law and in the fundamental privacy protections for all Americans under decided law.

What I want to know is that you are going to break the stranglehold of dependence our country has on foreign oil.

What I want to know is that you will make rebuilding New Orleans for all of the people of New Orleans a top domestic priority, and that another debacle like this administration's response to Katrina will never happen on your watch.

What I want to know is that you see and understand just how massively off-track our country has gone, and that you have some idea about how to right it, and the ability to do so.

I want to know that you will be willing to tell the American people what we need to hear, not just what we want to hear.

I want to know that you can be a leader.

I want to know that you will give us our country back.

Seeing the two of you walk on to the debate stage Thursday night was thrilling. You've made history already, and the fact that one of you will very likely go on to lead our nation is a huge symbolic victory for the Democratic party and for the nation, one that I will do everything in my power to see come to pass. But you can't govern on symbolism.

I want to believe in hope, in twelve point plans for an amorphous vision of change. But I need more. Call me demanding. You bet I'm demanding. We all should be. The times and the state of our nation require it.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:32 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Do a song, like Alanis Morissette (10+ / 0-)

        "I want to know..."

        Could be a netroots hit!

  •  Yes we can! (5+ / 0-)

    Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism - Rocky Anderson

    by librarianman on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:33:50 AM PST

      •  That's a lot of questions with the same answer (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David Boyle, jlms qkw

        Gandhi replied, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

        by turnnoblindeye on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:36:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Did you have to (24+ / 0-)

        post that speech? Now all I can think about is how much better off we'd be with Howard Dean in the White House. Again.

        The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

        by sidnora on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:45:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Many of your questions have been answered (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StevenW, eumaies, Blue Letter

        at length, often in multi-page .PDF format, freely available to download from the candidates' web sites.

        You act as if Barack Obama has never addressed taking seriously the effort to catch Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan (and how invading Iraq took our eye off that ball)?

        You act is if Barack Obama has never expressed a willingness to "tell the American people what we need to hear, not just what we want to hear," when it's something he's espoused in those exact words this entire time?

        Many of your questions are statements taken from Obama's platform with question marks placed at the end.  With all due regard, perhaps you ought have used The Google (TM) a bit more before hitting "publish."

        (Unless, of course, your intent was entirely dramatic and rhetorical.  Which I'd bet my lunch on.)

        •  Maybe they have but... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell, BarnBabe, mcmom

          that doesn't mean that they aren't good questions and that everyone shouldn't be asking them and making sure they know what the candidate's answers are. And perhaps one candidate has answered some of them but the other has not. And the other has answered other questions that the first one has not.

          "Some folks are wise and some are otherwise." --Tobias George Smolett

          by lynneinfla on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:00:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not what McJoan's diary did, though. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Blue Letter, John2Luke

            They're questions to always be mindful of, I agree with wholeheartedly; they're our principles.

            But to seriously act as if candidates haven't addressed issues which are core, vocal, prominent components of their platforms?  McJoan says "no one's asking" and that she wants to know the answers, but the answers are already out there for all to read.

            McJoan almost certainly knows this, which is why I'm calling hyperbole.

            •  The candidates are being very cautious. (4+ / 0-)

              I don't blame them.  Look what happened to Howard Dean when he asked all those questions.

              They took care of him in just a few months.

              McJoan is right...they are not coming out and talking about the invasion and occupation of other countries.  That is the root of many of our problems.

              They are speaking in generalities to survive.  

              "I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right." Howard Dean

              by floridagal on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:18:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, but these exact questions are asked to both (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                badger, ranee, Boorad, mcmom

                Dean was the only one asking these within a large field of candidates. Now we are down to two candidates. We can ask them now because this is when we make our selection.

                I examined the voting of each Senator. Interesting. I question the health care differences because I want to make sure that the people who fall between Medicaid and  Universal Health Insurance are not left out of the system. Those are the people who can not afford the current cost of the insurance and can not afford a doctor but who make too much to qualify. I want Medicaid done away with and a universal plan to cover all people under 65. I said plan, not giveaway. I want the Hospital to charge a non insured person (who would now be insured under the plan) the same amount that they are charging the insurance company. No more one price for you and 3x higher for the next guy.

                In other words, I want to get to the real nitty gritty of the candidates and not general proposals.

                Thanks McJoan.

                I'm voting for the Democrat! End of story!

                by BarnBabe on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:58:40 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Asking these questions focuses the discussion (7+ / 0-)

              on these issues, rather than the sensationalism the traditional media tend to prefer. These questions need to be asked over and over, even when they have been fully answered in ways that don't receive the broadest possible attention.

              •  Then keep asking them, but don't pretend (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Blue Letter

                they've never been answered.  Joan implicitly accused the candidates of not answering her questions.

                At this point, I might as well go with a coin toss, because there are a few things I want to know about these candidates, and so far I’ve not heard the answers I need.

                Either she hasn't looked hard enough or she's being dramatic.

                •  Shem, go over there and read them again and (4+ / 0-)

                  tell me they are substantive, and not just copywriting for persuasion.  Here's the page on the economy, others are under "Issues."
                  Obama 08: Issues-economy

                  •  What standard are you using rolfy? (0+ / 0-)

                    Are you asking for actual bill text? You know that the president doesn't actually sponsor bills, right? You've looked a Obama's website I trust, and read his specific promises.

                    Respectfully, McJoan mentioned few to no questions that are not answered by what Senator Obama has pledged to do. Indeed Obama covers several key areas like technological innovation for better government and better health care, which neither McJoan nor Hillary has touched.

                    The diarist could have linked to the campaigns' websites if doing so would have supported her point, but she didn't because it wouldn't.

                •  Since you know all of the answers (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Boorad, freeman11

                  for your candidate, it should be a simple task to write a quick diary linking your candidates answers to the questions.

                  It would be a lot more useful than a diary saying Obama is a Mac and Clinton is a PC. And a lot more persuasive than the hit diaries each side produces in volume.

                  Ny guess is you won't do it because you can't.

                  I have my fears, but they do not have me - Peter Gabriel

                  by badger on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:16:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Shen, those .pdfs are copywriting (0+ / 0-)

              exercizes and are written to sound good.  For instance, when I read the one on economic policy, I was astounded to discover that his proposal was to give everyone a tax credit for $500.

        •  Voting no on the recent FISA is not the the same (4+ / 0-)

          as heading the justice dept. that administers it. ie:  Will there be special prosecutors?  

          Upholding the constitution is more than just pledging it.  You have to wade through the rhetoric to decide what they will do with all the Regency grad types burried throughout the govt.

          How about the FCC appts.?

          etc.

        •  I've been through those .pdfs (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          badger, ranee, SeattleLiberal, freeman11

          many of them sound good but have no real content other than identifying a problem.  Some of them propose bandaid answers, not real functional structural changes for the problems coming home to roost now.

          •  This disproves your claim of "no real content": (0+ / 0-)

            You yourself highlighted this proposal above:

            Barack Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they deserve. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family.

            The fact that this proposal upseats you sure says to me that Obama has been plenty specific, even enough to turn off members of the base.

        •  Yes: Already Answered (0+ / 0-)

          Just a couple of examples that I know off the top of my head. They're about Obama, since I know his views better; I do not doubt that similar answers could be found for Clinton:

          Obama has already renounced the doctrine of preemptive war. (I wrote about this a while back, in response to a question from a reader.) He has already worked hard and taken political risks to oppose torture. He went to the mats to keep habeas rights from being stripped from Guantanamo detainees. And, of course, he has already unequivocally renounced torture:

          "The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer - it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America's standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It's time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It's time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values," said Obama."

          He has done a lot of work for veterans. (Actual info starts about halfway through the post.) You can also check his Senate website for more on what he has already done, and of course his campaign website for more on what he plans to do.

          Likewise, he's done a lot of stuff on Katrina: he and Coburn introduced and passed legislation banning no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, he passed legislation requiring evacuation plans for people with special needs, requiring an investigation of the trailers that had formaldehyde in them, etc., etc. He also has a detailed plan. On this issue, I just can't see why his record is even in question.

          Similarly on appointing cronies, etc: Obama has an incredibly strong record on ethics reform. From the Washington Post:

          "On this issue, Obama leads the pack -- I'd say PAC, but he (and Edwards) don't take their checks, either. He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers.

          He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns. It's nice to hear Clinton talk about how "we've got to move toward public financing" -- Edwards backs it, too -- but I don't see her name on those measures.

          Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same."

          He's opposed to immunity for telecoms:

          "Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same."

          That's just off the top of my head. It took about 10 minutes, with googling and cutting and pasting, to find this. And, as I said, I imagine someone could have done the same for Clinton.

          I want to know these things too. I'm sure a lot of people do. But I don't see why someone who posts on the front page at dKos couldn't take the time to find the answers to the questions she wants answered. That would have been a much greater service, I think, than just passing on a list of questions.

          •  Oops (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neon Mama

            What Obama actually opposes is preventive war, not preemptive war. Preemptive war is war in response to a genuinely imminent threat. Basically, when some enemy is plainly about to strike you and you do not wait for the blow to actually land, you engage in preemptive war. Preventive war is war in response to something less: a threat that is not imminent, or no threat at all.

            Iraq is a preventive war; there was probably no real threat at all, and certainly not an imminent one. Likewise, anything we might now do against Iran would be preventive, not preemptive. Had (say) Poland attacked Nazi Germany when German columns were heading for the Polish border, but before they had actually crossed it, that would have been preemptive war. I don't know many non-pacifists who oppose preemptive war, at least if they're aware of the difference between preemptive and preventive war.

            Sorry about that.

            •  Sounds a bit like a distinction without a (0+ / 0-)

              difference to me. Didn't the Bushies get a large majority of those who got to make the decision to agree that there was a threat? With hindsight you can label it as "preventative", but at the time it was accepted as "pre-emptive".

              I don't think you have to be a pacifist to oppose the invasion of other countries without international consensus.

      •  We can elect a prez allied w/ Ted Kennedy instead (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Duke S, Neon Mama

        of electing one whose top adviser is a union-busting corporate whore.  We can elect a prez who can draw 13k in Boise in the primary campaign (I didn't even know there were 13k Dems in Boise).  We can elect a prez who told the truth about Iraq in 2002 when far too many Dems were buying the WH's BS hook, line, and sinker.

        Edwards was my first choice, and Dodd was my 2d.  Given the binary option we have now, however, it's pretty easy.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:11:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  i want to know all those things too! (8+ / 0-)

    ps, loved the book you reviewed (A Man You Could Love) and i am recommending it widely.  

  •  All this about surrogate poo-flinging (8+ / 0-)

    seems pretty exaggerated to me.  When I review the actual clips, there's never nearly as much "there" there as one has been led to believe.  It's a hot-house atmosphere, for sure, but folks don't have to buy into it so hard.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:38:20 AM PST

  •  How about (7+ / 0-)

    Have you read the Constitution of the United States?

  •  Which Wing is That? (14+ / 0-)

    To paraphrase Howard Dean:  I'd say that Hillary is from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, while Obama is from the Republican wing of the party.

    Hillary's core liberalism and working-class affinities are truly in the party's tradition.  Obams's blending of the differences between us and the GOP are not.

    •  I disagree (6+ / 0-)

      I haven't been too fond of Obama's political style early on in this, but particularly after Thursday's debate, I don't doubt his convictions.

      •  I do. An ad running in my state (8+ / 0-)

        has him telling us he wants to bring Democrats and Republicans together to solve our problems.

        What?!?

        Republicans in THIS congress created our problems and have no wish to solve them and will fight us every step of the way.

        This ain't beanbag is right.  Kumbaya is crap.  Obama's political style would be fine from the oval office to talk about bringing the country together but it will never be allowed by Republicans.  As a candidate, I want to be reassured that he GETS that and will fight for reclaiming the FDR agenda.

        The past vs. the future?  No.  He's wrong about that.  It's an empty slogan.

        Past is prologue and Hillary's experience in the Clinton administration and since tells me she knows what worked and what didn't...and better yet, why.  Her comment about a Clinton cleaning up after a Bush is germane and there has not since FDR been a time when experience has been as valuable as it is now.  It's still "The economy, stupid."

        Everything matters...but some things matter more than others.

        Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

        by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:27:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As my recently departed father was fond of saying (0+ / 0-)

          Can't never did nothin' - Can Do did.

          There are many notable examples of successful bi-partisan efforts.  Would you rather spend another 4 to 8 years bickering while the ocean levels rise?

          Fired up! Ready to go!

          by susanWAstate on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:51:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Missing the point. It take 2 to tango. (4+ / 0-)

            Successful bipartisan efforts are about legislation or travel...they have nothing to do with this issue.  Of course Dems would cooperate with Rs...always have, always will.  Rs only cooperate with Dems when they have to...otherwise they lie, cheat, steal and demonize us as tax-and-spend libruls who will surrender to the enemy.

            Please.

            Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

            by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:28:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  But what does Obama DO? (8+ / 0-)

            I'm an Edwards supporter, and I think I'm voting for him anyway when my time comes.  But after Edwards dropped out I needed to find out more about the other 2. I'm no Clinton fan, and dynasties are not democratic; but I was also frustrated by Obama's willingness to support Republican memes from Social Security to Ronald Reagan (and have always had a lingering resentment about his Schiavo vote).  Being a spreadsheet kind of geek, I copied all of Hillary and Obama's votes from Project Vote Smart.  Since Obama was elected there were 246 major votes.  There are only 8 votes noted where they voted differently (oddly the Schiavo vote wasn't on the database, but I digress).  But what really stood out for me were Obama's missed votes.  Obama didn't vote 16.26% of the time, Hillary 10.57%.  And since Obama announced for president he missed a LOT more.  I feel like he is unwilling to take a stand on any issue.  Since February Obama NV on:

            *FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment

            *Attorney General No Confidence Vote

            *Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees

            *Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts & Student Grants

            *Border Fence and Customs Appropriations

            *Department of Homeland Security Appropriations

            *Implementing 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act

            *REAL ID Funding

            *Expressing Support for General Petraeus and All  Members of the Armed Forces

            *Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Federalism in Iraq

            *Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

            *State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization

            *Border Fence and Customs Appropriations

            Hillary voted wrong on Iran, and wrong on Iraq before that.  She also missed the boat by not taking a stand on the bankruptcy bill in 2005.  But that is the ONLY time she didn't vote and Obama did.  I have all kinds of issues with her. But I can't see that Obama is any kind of hero when he doesn't use the power he was given, by the PEOPLE, to make a statement.  He didn't and hasn't.

            You return guilty you give truth back. P Fitzgerald

            by vincula on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:56:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Tom Delay, is that you? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell

          So, "Bipartisanship is equivalent to date rape" would about sum up your candidate's approach to governing? Like many things about Senator Clinton, that sounds very familiar. Thanks old pro, but I haven't given up hope yet.

        •  but I must say.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neon Mama

          I keep running into Republicans who never voted for a Democrat before saying they will vote for him. And also there are very liberal people voting for him. That does not mean he is going to cave to Republicans.

          An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.

          by wishingwell on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:43:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary lobbiest represent real Americans (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SecondComing, wishingwell

      Hillary is from the DCL which is the corporate wing of the DNC.

      http://blog.washingtonpost.com/...

    •  The Republican wing? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SecondComing, wishingwell

      He was just pegged as the Senate's most liberal Senator and you are saying he is a DINO now?

      He appeals to voters from all political stripes, not because he is a DINO, but because he doesn't demonize people for having an opposing viewpoint.

      It's ridiculous to assert that he is from the 'Republican wing' of the Democratic Party.

      It's not a sign of weakness to learn from a mistake. It's a sign of stupidity to keep doing the same things over and over without ever learning~Dave Dial

      by DAVE DIAL on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:02:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Repub wing": Dean was referring to Hillary's DLC (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gooserock, wishingwell, AlBob, mrchumchum

      He was referring to the DLC.

      The DLC Bill Clinton started and Hillary's still a part of, as I'm sure you aware.  Pretty brazen hypocrisy there, invoking Dean's condemnation of the DLC to pump up Clinton and slam Obama.  Some might call that intellectual dishonesty, even.

    •  They both will have to prove themselves to me (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, vets74, Neon Mama

      I am voting for Obama, but I don't know for sure what kind of President he will be.

      I do know that Bill Clinton carried a lot of Corporate water and I suspect that Hillary and Obama may as well.

      My hope is that Obama will care more about the citizens and the Constitution.  I know that growing up in Hawaii gives him a totally different set of shades for viewing our culture. He starts with fewer debts and baggage and a good skill set for using the bully pulpit to drive an agenda.

      I believe President Obama will unleash a tsunami of pent up creativity and energy to solve our problems.

    •  Pre-emptive war is in the party's tradition? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, Amayupta yo, vets74

      I'll be damned.  I could've sworn that the Kennedy Bros expressly rejected the concept when they refused to bomb Cuba in 10/62 in spite of the insistence of the JCS and a whole lot of others that they do so.

      HRC expressly voted for pre-emptive war in 10/02.  As Jim Webb noted at the time, she effectively approved the concept again when she voted for K-L last fall.  Hell, 6 days ago, she got up and applauded W's "the surge is working BS."

      There is one candidate who views CIC as a critical part of the job, who has supported pre-emptive war, and who has blended the differences between the parties on foreign policy issues.  That candidate is not Barack Obama.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:07:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, if it's unfair to hate on Hillary. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, TerribleTom

      Which it is.  I think it has to be unfair to call Mr. Obama a Republican.

  •  I want to know... (5+ / 0-)

    if we'll have an open Superbowl Thread starting at 6:00PM... ;)

    Good diary.

    ~Doc~

    My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington. --Barack Obama

    by EquationDoc on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:40:42 AM PST

  •  BEST DIARY I HAVE READ AROUND HERE (32+ / 0-)

    in Months. Finally someone who is really thinking and not just throwing up some cherry picking junk to try and divide us or make us vote for their guy/gal.

    McJoan for McSOS.

    ps. Glad to see mcmom around these parts. Heh.

    John McCain has magical shoes and a lucky feather, rock and penny.

    by Chamonix on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:41:02 AM PST

  •  Excellent list... (35+ / 0-)

    The only thing I would add is, "I want to know that science and scientists will be free to offer advice uncompromised by a political agenda and will be free to pursue their science without interference from the State--indeed, with the help of the State.

    If we continue to accumulate only power and not wisdom, we will surely destroy ourselves. -Carl Sagan

    by LightningMan on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:41:21 AM PST

      •  Only value is to score easy points (0+ / 0-)

        against republicans. And that may by fine and all for the General, but any Democratic nominee is going to appoint believers in Climate Change and Darwin, and uphold scientific principals.

        My point is that this issue doesn't distinguish these two candidates. And respectfully, I would argue that most of the issues raised in this diary do not distinguish these candidates. They more rightly distinguish democrats (and the public!) from republicans.

        So the only reason to bring them now up is to turn away from our candidates differences and bash Bush. Again, that's great and all, but we'll likely be facing a republican who does believe in evolution and climate change and promises to act accordingly. This impresses people far more in a republican than a democrat making the issue likely a wash.

        However, Obama has real proposals for science and technology as applied to Government Reform, the Environment, and Health Care. On these he beats both Clinton and McCain.

        •  and heres Hillary website on (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LightningMan

          Comprehensive Government Reform

          Americans are ready for a government that puts competence ahead of cronyism.

          Banning Cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration.

          Strengthening whistleblower protections.

          Creating a public service academy.

          Ending abuse of no-bid government contracts and posting all contracts online.

          Cutting 500,000 government contractors.

          Blackwater/Haliburton: begone

          Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment.

          yeah, baby!

          Publishing budgets for every government agency.

          Implementing Results America Initiative to track government effectiveness.

          Tracking and eliminating corporate welfare.

          Hey Big Oil: your $40 billion: it's toast!

          Expanding voting access and safeguarding voting machines.

          The Democratic bills, hers, Kerry's, or Holt's that have gotten bogged down in Republican obstructionism: finally signed into law!

          and on the Environment
          too detailed to post here, but as pretty much a climate voter, her well thought out and effective Goracle based detail on this issue is the reason I am a Hillary voter.

          and on healthcare...again, just go to the candidates website. There is no excuse for not knowing the differences.

    •  Clinton has a good position on this (6+ / 0-)

      Ending the War on Science

      Ending the War on Science

      "For six and half years under this president, it’s been open season on open inquiry. And by ignoring or manipulating science, the Bush administration is letting our economic competitors get an edge in the global economy," Clinton said....

      [bullet point]
      "Ends political interference with science. Hillary will ban political appointees from altering or removing scientific conclusions in government publications without any legitimate basis for doing so, and prohibit unwarranted suppression of public statements by government scientists. "

      Her specific plan in this area is one of my favorite things about her campaign.

  •  Obama Taught Constitutional Law (13+ / 0-)

    And never mentions it. I trust that he would do the right thing by the Constitution, but what's wrong with saying it and campaigning on it?

  •  I Want To Know As Well (6+ / 0-)

    Please advise if and when you get the answers.

  •  Thank you! MWAH! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, joanneleon, Fabian, jlms qkw

    for a reasoned approach.  Reasoned approaches are so rare anymore.

    None of the candidates are good enough to be fanatical about. They're all politicians

    by TeresaInSammamishWA on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:42:35 AM PST

  •  We should never renounce "preemptive war" (4+ / 0-)

    What we should renounce is the policy of preventive war that we clearly bungled along into in Iraq. The country was sold a bill of goods on the pretense of an imminent threat, which would be preemptive war, and is specifically permitted under United Nations guidelines.

    Instead, we got a preventive war against a possible future challenger for prestige in the Mideast. Just a small clarification.

    I say Billings, be careful with that missile!

    by Chairman Bob on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:42:39 AM PST

    •  Preemptive War Is Mark of a Country Near Collapse (7+ / 0-)

      Read the books analyzing the totalitarian states and fascism written in the 60's. Preemptive war is how you know your country is falling down the rabbit whole. Or just go get a copy of Mein Kampf. The other reason to read MK is to see where all the classic Rovian attacks originated.

      •  You're confused, I think, (5+ / 0-)

        because a pre-emptive war is one launched against an enemy already poised to start an immdediate aggression.  I think that you are thinking of a preventive war, which is one launched in order to weaken a hypothetical future opponent.  Hitler openly advocated the latter.

        •  That's A Very Neocon Sort Of Word Game (7+ / 0-)

          For the last 8 years, all we've been getting is justifications based on slicing and dicing of definitions and grammar to weasel out of any real discussion of issues.

          And if you go back to classic books on totalitarianism,  this corruption of the use of language is always high on the list.

          •  no it's not a word game. Words have meanings, (6+ / 0-)

            legally; treaties are legal documents; the words in them have meaning.

            Preemptive war is justifiable according to international law (we're not talking morally here or about the philosophy of pacifism or militarism); preventive war is not. There are real differences between the two concepts, and it's "preventive war" that Bush used to invade Iraq. I quoted wiki above; here's more wiki for you.

            •  America Went Bankrupt Over Semantics? (3+ / 0-)

              The neocons spent the last 8 years trying to convince us that their "preventive" war was really "preemption."

              I appreciate what you're saying, but the difference is slim enough that someone can always claim to have the moral high ground.  You're right in a way that hasn't done anyone any good and enables the people who are the  greatest threat to civilization, because it only takes  primitive propaganda to obscure the difference.

              •  It's not a slim difference at all (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Neon Mama

                It's a fundamental difference between two similar sounding words.

                Don't be upset at the dictionary, be upset at the pundits and functionaries that have spun on TV until the public thought one was the other. It's a case of misrepresentation and lying, not wordplay.

                I say Billings, be careful with that missile!

                by Chairman Bob on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:11:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  neoconservatives are pretty frank about their (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wishingwell, dotcommodity

                belief in preventive war as a useful tool. Certainly Rush Limbaugh listeners don't worry about the distinction. nor do they care about int'l treaties!

                As I see it, it was the Beltway media, Colin Powell, Bush, etc. (we won't mention various members of Congress, not all GOP) who were the ones trying to convince us (the American people) that Bush's invasion of Iraq would be to "preempt" an immediate imminent threat.

                •  Don't Bring A Butter Knife To a Gun Fight (0+ / 0-)

                  The neocon philosophy is that whole idea that the Aristotlean essence of anything expresses itself through action. From there you get the whole Hegelian idea that the purest essence of a nation and its spirit is made manifest by victorious war, a war which requires no reason except the need to impose it national spirit on another people. Strauss takes that to Chicago, teaches Alan Bloom and the rest of neocon kiddies.

                  And a big part of that is the word games and corruption of language. So you need more than a dictionary to combat people who live by the creed of the Noble Lie, so don't bring a butter knife to a gunfight.

      •  no, you've confused the two, as has mcjoan. (8+ / 0-)

        "preemptive war" is legal and justifiable (as far as you believe any war is justified), according to international treaties as Chairman Bob said; "preventive war" isn't. And it's "preventive war" that Bush enshrined in our National Security Strategy back in 2002, and used to justify his illegal invasion of Iraq.

        And it's "preventive war" that John Edwards repudiated in a major foreign policy speech back in November that was covered here only in the much-derided "candidate diaries," and was reported only as "Edwards attacks Clinton again," in the MSM. It's too late now to have a Dem nominee who will renounce Bush's preventive war policy during the campaign, although we can certainly hope our next Democratic President, no matter who it is, won't be so quick to invade other countries:

        Wiki on preventive war:

        Preventive war is war launched in anticipation of a future loss of security or strategic advantage. The label is intended to distinguish it from preemptive war, or anticipatory self-defense. Preventive war is only claimed to prevent a hypothetical attack which might occur in the future; for example, a war launched to prevent an adversary acquiring more powerful weapons. In international law, preventive war has no recognized status as distinct from a war of aggression.

        •  Except any tinpot dictator can claim (6+ / 0-)

          a war is "pre-emptive" - which is what Bush did, trumping a lot of nonsense about threats and WMD's and intent and meetings with Al queda and blah blah blah, so a war of choice became "pre-emptive" - see, Saddam was 45 minutes away from blowing up someone or other . . .

          Pre-emptive war may be "legal", but the very nature of what makes something pre-emptive as opposed to preventive brings us lovely things like Tonkin, WMD's and Iranian speedboats issuing "threats" in bad accents.

          We may need to reserve the right to take someone out who is poised to take us out, but that also gives aholes like bush the leeway to invent the "taking us out" part to justify an unjustifiable war.

          "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

          by delphine on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:20:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Purpose of Propaganda -To Obscure That Difference (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jennifer poole, Neon Mama

            That's really pretty much the main function of propaganda. And that's why the eggheads get steamrollered every single time.

          •  yes, certainly. and well said. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boorad

            I'm not arguing that because preemptive war is legal, or has been used as the justification for many 20th century military actions, it's "good"; I'm just saying that Bush took it further than preemptive war.

            And I agree with Chairman Bob that we won't be hearing leading Democratic candidates repudiate "preemptive war," or as you put it: "the right to take someone out who is poised to take us out."

            Here's how Edwards put it in his speech:

            Here's what they mean by preventive war -- if we see a possible threat, we go to war; we don't exhaust diplomatic, political, and economic options, we go straight to war. Under this Bush doctrine, military force is no longer the option of last resort.

          •  Very true (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bernardpliers, Neon Mama

            That's why a claim of preemptive war is such an extraordinary claim - and hence why it must be backed up by extraordinary evidence, and not just alumininum tubes.

            Even if Iran were a real threat now, which it isn't, we probably couldn't do anything about it since Bush poisoned that well.

            I say Billings, be careful with that missile!

            by Chairman Bob on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:07:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  And I disagree (8+ / 0-)

      I think a preemptive war is inherently immoral, and it is the single biggest issue that has lost us support around the world.

      When did our power become available to step in, without any evidence of hostile action, and use military forces to shape the world.

      Yes, preventive wars are bad. But any preemptive war is a misuse of power. We have become the bullies of the world.

      And so, rather than simply claim that "we were misled by Bush", I want to hear the candidates declare that the entire moral premise of the war was wrong: not just bad intelligence, not bad planning, not bad execution.  The tree is rotten because the root is rotten.

    •  Or If You Prefer Lincoln (8+ / 0-)

      Criticizing Jame Polk for the Mexican American War:

      "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose – and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don’t." The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."

      James Polk - great president or greatest president ever?

      •  Preemptive vs Preventative (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dus7, Chairman Bob

        War is pretty immoral on any grounds although most people would think that self-defense is a moral basis for war.  I think Lincoln was talking about preventative as opposed to preemption.  If a gun is pointed at you, you don't need to wait to be shot to try and shove the gun away.  Admittedly, there is a lot of subjectivity as to what constitutes clear, present, imminent material danger and so even the doctrine of preemption is dangerous.  

        Bush's invasion of Iraq was justified as a preemptive strike but it wasn't.  They tried very hard to make the case for preemption at the UN.  And failed miserably (although our media at the time thought otherwise.)

        •  "Failed Miserably" Indeed (0+ / 0-)

          Bush's invasion of Iraq was justified as a preemptive strike but it wasn't.  They tried very hard to make the case for preemption at the UN.  And failed miserably (although our media at the time thought otherwise.)

          Wait'll next time! We'll get it right for sure!

    •  Clarify Preemptive War Grounds (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neon Mama, rhutcheson

      Preemption is justified only if there is a clear, present and imminent danger of material harm.  Bush's invasion was clearly not preemptive because even if Saddam had WMD, he did not have the present means to deliver them in any meaningful way.  

    •  OK, but it's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John2Luke

      hard for me to imagine a situation in which the US would have a valid reason to launch a preemptive war in the foreseeable future.  Against whom or what would it be conducted?

      •  Hypothetical (0+ / 0-)

        Let's say that our satellites show long range missiles on  a submarine off our coast being armed.  What do we do?

        One of the harms that Bush has done to this country is to make other countries suspicious of any claims of threats no matter how legitimate.  It will take a long time to restore credibility in the world community.

        •  See, that's the whole point. (0+ / 0-)
          Your scenario is unrealistic (besides, mutual US/USSR mobilizations happened a number of times without either country preemptively attacking the other).

          Try to think of a scenario that's realistic, in which the US develops sure knowledge that it is going to be subject to a devastating preventive attack by, or at the behest of another nation state, in which the US also does not have enough time to publicize the threat and to take appropriate diplomatic action, with allies and at the UN.

          I can't think of one.

          •  True... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chairman Bob, rhutcheson

            Modern threats are less dramatic.  Cyber attacks are a threat and it would be pretty impossible to justify a preemptive strike.  

            The Cuban Missile crisis was probably as close to a valid use of a preemptive strike as I've seen.  And that  was averted by making the case to the UN.  

            There is one other element of the doctrine of preemption - the use of force has to be the only realistic means of stopping the imminent threat.

            Bush's invasion was not a preemptive strike.

      •  That's the thing (0+ / 0-)

        Just because you can't conceive of a threat now doesn't mean you should just take the option off the table. While I chuckle at the realists eyeing the EU suspiciously, sometimes world systems lose all stability very quickly, i.e. 1990-1992.

        I say Billings, be careful with that missile!

        by Chairman Bob on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:04:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What I want to know... (5+ / 0-)

    ...is why front page posts can't have a fold in them unless they're bumped from the diaries. I'm wearing out my scroll wheel.

  •  P.S. - And what I *REALLY* want to know... (21+ / 0-)

    . . . is how in the world, Hillary/Barack do you expect to win my vote/support/time/money if you "answer" those questions with lame-ass dodges, happy-talk piffle or mealy-mouthed platitudes?

    Well?

    BenGoshi
    ____________________________________________________

    The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:42:57 AM PST

    •  P.P.S. -- I mean, I know you each have your... (17+ / 0-)

      . . . "core supporters", who are so many Hilbots and Obamabots, but I -- and many of us out here -- are not willing to just swallow your platitudes as so much Wisdom Doled-out From On High.  Meh!

      I want to get behind one or the other of you.  I want to get enthused about one or the other of you.  I want to look forward to campaigning for, and giving $$$ to, one or the other of you.  But none of that's gonna happen unless you honestly, directly and succinctly address matters/issues/questions like those put forward by mcjoan in this story.

      Oh, and by the way, you satisfy my need for No B.S. answers to those kinds of questions and, believe me, you'll be satisfying millions of Americans' craving for the same thing (I'm pretty damned typical, here) -- and that'll take you to the White House.

      BenGoshi
      ___________________________________________________

      The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:53:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I will vote for the nominee in Nov (8+ / 0-)

      I'm voting for JRE in California because I can not find a reason to vote for either of these two over the other, I just cannot.  I do not trust Obama to be a strong leader for progressive principles, and actually doubt that he has any intention of moving in a progressive way (other than in juxtaposition to Bush and the goopers), and I am sure that Clinton is far too heavily compromised by her lobbyist connections to move far-she is however, in my opinion, far more savvy and able to at least fight the cultural warrior goopers who hate her and whom she hates in return.  So, I will send what money I have to congressional candidates, Barry Welsh is a candidate in the John Edwards mold, and is in a fight against one of the worst of the goopers, Mike Pence.  I'll vote for whomever the rest of you nominate, but I think we got sold a media driven bill of goods.

      "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

      by NearlyNormal on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:03:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you should reconsider, Nearly. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SaraBeth

        If nothing else, we need a problem solver because the problems are mounting even as we speak.  Everything else aside, Hillary and Edwards are far closer on healthcare and on the economy that Obama and Edwards.  You should vote for Hillary, IMO, and not take the '3rd party' way out.

        I agree with your concerns about Obama.

        Choose.  You can do it.  It's a secret ballot, after all....

        Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

        by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:46:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  oldpro if I thought she was a problem-solver (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon, Blue Letter, valsagem

          rather than a problem-creator, my choice would be easy.  She is too deep into the pockets of the lobbyists to be a problem-solver cause they are the tools of the root of the problem.

          "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

          by NearlyNormal on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:51:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't buy that for one minute. (0+ / 0-)

            Problem-solving is her stock-in-trade...or so her New York constituents on both sides of the aisle say.  And they ought to know.  Even NY papers that endorsed her opponent in her first Senate run, endorsed her for reelection and for the Democratic nomination.

            Not good enough?  Well....better than nuttin'!

            Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

            by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Get serious, she has caused as many problems (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              valsagem

              as she has solved.  Her trade votes, her Kyl-Lieberman vote, her flag burning pandering, lots of other things keep me out of the Clinton camp.  NY papers mean less than nothing to me about my vote.  I'll vote for JRE and would inivite everyone who doesn't like the media brownout to shut down our options to do likewise.

              "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

              by NearlyNormal on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:43:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Disagree...but...Whatever. Sigh... (0+ / 0-)

                Maybe we should all just give up and vote for people who aren't running.  How many problems will THAT solve?

                Jeez...purists...you're giving me a headache.

                Have you ever run for office, Nearly?  Or managed a campaign for someone who did put it all on the line?  If not, you've no idea.  It is grueling.  And so is legislating.  Takes inordinate amounts of patience with very crabby people who expect near perfection.  Constituents....bleeeeah!

                Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

                by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:02:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  "Media driven bill of goods" (6+ / 0-)

        I feel the same way.  I resent the fact that the media had so much influence in choosing the candidates, so early in the game.  This system is broken.  We should still be hearing from other candidates too, and they should be holding each other accountable.  I don't believe we will get solid answers to much of what "we want to know" now.  We won't get specific answers.  This will be by design... political design.  It will be all about caution and wiggle room from here on out.

        This is democracy?  A few percent of Americans along with the media, effectively chose the candidates.

        "The walls between art and engineering exist only in our minds." --Theo Jansen

        by joanneleon on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:47:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Media shut out Kucinich, Edwards and Paul (4+ / 0-)

          As an Edwards supporter I was frustrated by the media blackout against him. It is gross how the Corporate Noise failed to cover any of the candidates focusing on Corporate responsibility.

          I just saw a chyron on CNN about the 3 Republicans still in the race. McCain, Romney and Huckabee.

          They don't even list Paul.

          I am not a Paul supporter, but I dislike media manipulation when I see it.

          We need public financing and free campaign ads.

      •  Doing likewise tuesday in CT. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NearlyNormal

        "Don't believe everything you think" Buddhist saying

        by hester on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:28:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I want to know those things too. (16+ / 0-)

    Especially, "tell the American people what we need to hear, not just what we want to hear." We're heading into some very hard times nationwide, and we're going to need a leader who's ready to reach beyond giving us easy answers that make them popular.

    And shutting Guantanmo Bay down, sending those prisoners to legal prisons on US soil, letting them see their lawyers, and either charging them or letting them go needs to be job one. No torture in America, no illegal imprisonment. We must respect the rule of law or we are nothing.

  •  Honestly... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jlms qkw, ROADRUNNER DEM

    i think in order to even gain a chance at the nomination, the candidates must be more cautious.  I was a huge Dean fan (and remain so today).  Some of the questions asked here have been answered.  As an Obama supporter I think he is relying upon us to push through just what it is we desire.  Clinton, on the other hand, seems to say just leave it up to her, she knows what to do.

  •  I hope this is the beginning.... (10+ / 0-)

    of a "dKos Questions for the President" series.

    You should do a diary on each of those questions with sources and send them to each campaign.

    Awesome.

    PATRIOT I+II, MCA, FISA CAPITULATION, NOW TORTURE. YOUR COUNTRY IS SLOWLY BEING DISMANTLED. WHAT R U GONNA DO ABOUT IT?

    by maxschell on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:44:07 AM PST

  •  Good luck getting an answer to any of this! (10+ / 0-)

    If either Hillary (D-DLC) or Barack (D-Kumbaya) started putting stuff like this in their stumps, it'd scare all the big $ doners away!

    "The road to gas chambers starts when good people find excuses to justify torture and murder. Feinstein and Schumer are enablers."- Larry Johnson -8.25, -6.21

    by Jacques on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:45:31 AM PST

  •  The Tea is in the Harbor!!! (11+ / 0-)

    Photobucket

    When good people of conscience give up the fight for justice, all is lost. Therefore you must not give up. www.politicalartwork.blogspot.com

    by EmilyD on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:46:03 AM PST

  •  Another one for the list (19+ / 0-)

    I want to know how you'll keep the stranglehold of religion from stifling the valiant progress of science.

    None of the candidates are good enough to be fanatical about. They're all politicians

    by TeresaInSammamishWA on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:46:18 AM PST

    •  I'm religious. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon, Fabian, SaraBeth, dus7, mcmom, valsagem

      But my religion/faith includes the premise that Jesus did not advocate His followers embracing dumbassery or rejecting the brains which enable us to contemplate the gift of life and the wonders of the cosmos.

      My religion/faith also stands upon a foundation that says, "If you see someone who thinks they have all the answers, run like hell in the opposite direction  -- while holding on to your wallet and sanity!".

      BenGoshi
      ____________________________________________________

      The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:03:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  organized religion's a problem that needs solving (0+ / 0-)

      When Pat Robertson said 'God told him' to do (fill in the blanks)...maybe God did speak to him.  The problem is...Pat doesnt listen! (hence, his timely endorsement of Rudy)
      I do believe a much needed investigation and audit of these mega-churches should include more than the 6 or so that Sen Grassley's group is looking at.
      My husband sometimes watches 700 Club while channel surfing.  How can people be so gullible?  What do Pat & Gordan do with all those donations?  I know Pat likes expensive race horses...his answer to that is that he's always been interested in 'EQUESTRIAN ATHLETICS'.  HA!   He also has great interests (financial) in African Diamond mines.  And yet, he never has enough money...so some little old grannie must scrape together more donations to 'match' some anonymous rich donor.  And for some reason, other devout Christians dont trust God enough to 'bless' them unless they spend their last few dollars on Pat's latest fund raising marathon!  Where is all that cash going?  this is only 1 example!
      As a Christian, I can attest to the many times the Lord has taken care of me & my family....without the 'middle man'.  My favorite charities besides my local church are the Salvation Army & the Rescue Mission.  FOOD-SHELTER-CLOTHING & a simple gospel message.  Results God would approve of.
      The charletans of this world make us all look bad....I will fight that image with every penny I give and every chance I get.
         
         

      Where people fear the government there is tyrany: "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson

      by ROADRUNNER DEM on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:16:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  also, more thoughts on religion... (0+ / 0-)

        THE BIG SHOT LEADERS OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT WING: where are their 'questions for the candidates'?  They have been very silent on:  TORTURE, lying us into Iraq war, secret prisons, signing statements by Bush, warrantless wire-tapping, Katrina, mismanaging our budget, homeless and mentally ill war vets.   Why do they assume that all Christians are republicans?  Not me & my family.  We have standards & values...not just 'one-issue' agendas.
        Why does their pro-life stance only include the unborn...not the sick children or the parents who are needed to raise them?  Why is it ok to wave the flag and 'celebrate' the 3942 dead men & women who so bravely served their country and yet not question the abject immorality of BUSH, CHENEY, RUMSFELD, RICE, TENET, POWELL, ADDISON, MARY MATLIN, ETC who sent them to their deaths?  Are not the 1.2+ million dead Iraqis also people?  I believe we have now murdered more Iraqis than Saddam did.  (or close to it)
        Their silence scares me.  It makes me ashamed.  Of them.

        Where people fear the government there is tyrany: "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson

        by ROADRUNNER DEM on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:29:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The mainstream press overlooks... (8+ / 0-)

    ...this speech in any analysis of why Dean became popular. Last week I added a mention of and link to this speech in the Dean wiki article.

  •  Agree with most of this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jlms qkw, mrchumchum

    however:

    What I want to know is that you will find bin Laden, that you will take seriously the threat that al Qaeda still poses and that you will know where and how to fight them.

    The correct question is, as you state how fight them. Add this on your question, perhaps ..

    What I want to know is that you will find bin Laden, that you will take seriously the threat that al Qaeda still poses and that you will know where and how, since it's obvious that the current techniques used to fight these criminals do not work,  to fight them.

    We need to get a commitment that they will do all they can, to stop making more 'terrorists'.

    "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
    If you want to go far, go together.
    We have to go far, quickly."

    by shpilk on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:46:48 AM PST

  •  I went through each of the questions (7+ / 0-)

    and the only ones I see a clear distinction on between the candidates are Iraq - where Obama's "Change the mindset" is the clear winner vs. "If I'd know..."

    I like Obama's answer in the last debate on the cabinet question - to which Clinton said "what he said" - so is that point for Obama or even.  I rank Obama higher because Clinton brings so many of the same old team with her.  McAllife, Penn....  bleah.

    and I also rank Obama a bit higher on "what we need to hear"  I recognize people will rank that differently - I credit the great speaking skills and "hope / inspiration" as having the ability to sway the public towards real change in a way I'm not convinced Clinton can.  I see a change for a different political landscape with Obama.

    Hence, I'm for Obama - but I'm substantially more impressed with Clinton herself these last couple weeks than I'd ever really expected to be.  That last debate was great.  I won't have to hold my nose for either (a BIT for the clinton team folks, but really - kerry and Gore would have brought a lot of the same folks themselves and I was for them...)

    But other than that I rank them even.

    Join Soulforce-seeking Justice for God's GLBT children.

    by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:47:37 AM PST

    •  oh and I also realized (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stephdray, eleanora, dus7, Duke S

      that a bunch of them - the are for vets and the gitmo questions - all I've really got to go on is my trust that a Democratic admin and larger majority in Congress would do the right thing...

      i.e. once we're done sniping at each other over the primaries, places like dKos will have a hell of a lot of work to continue doing to pressure our new leadership to advance such policies and actually create change.

      Join Soulforce-seeking Justice for God's GLBT children.

      by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you, mcjoan. (11+ / 0-)

    The answers to these questions are exactly what we should be fighting over and for around here. Exactly what organizations like MoveOn should be fighting for.

  •  Why are ID, UT, AK seemingly Obama states? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom, jlms qkw

    McJoan, do you see any policy differences that would suggest why these Western/NW states are leaning toward Obama?

  •  Also add - (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom, Neon Mama, jlms qkw, ROADRUNNER DEM

    I want to know that you will start enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust act again, and break up these despicable monopolies in oil, telecommunications, media, and healthcare.

    I want to know that you will stop using the power of the US Attorney to use in political prosecutions, and immediately exonerate former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

    I want to know that you will rebuild New Orleans.

    I want to know that you will end corporate welfare.

    I could go on... and on.

    (1) D.I.E.B.O.L.D.: Decisive In Elections By Ousting Liberal Democrats.
    (2) R.A.T.S.: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia.
    (3) -8.75, -8.10

    by Archangel on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:48:43 AM PST

  •  Obama has answered many of those questions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eumaies, Blue Letter

    spend some time looking though his statements and listen, really listen to a couple of his speeches. Go back and read his speech against the war in 03.

    I think that when you (and I) step into our local caucus meeting on Saturday the 9th (I suspect that you are in Washington, too) you will know who to cast your support for.

    Real hope. Real change. Obama has said much of this already but it has been missed by the media and ignored by the traditional power centers in the party (who have their candidate.)

    Many of us worked our butts off for the Dean movement. Late nights, days and days of putting up signs and knocking on doors. You were part of the Dean movement, too. See who carries that dream now. See who is the voice of hope and change now.

    It is Obama.

    Those questions you posted are good ones.

    Obama is the answer to most of them, if not all of them.

    http://denniswine.blogspot.com

    by denniswine on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:49:16 AM PST

    •  I think they want to be spoon fed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denniswine, Blue Letter

      I was gonna add a comment asking them where they've looked for answers but I'm pretty sure it's all rhetorical.

      I was also thinking of putting up a diary (would be my first) with all the answers cribbed from Obama's site...but...

      they need to do their own homework.

      Anyone can ask questions. Finding the answers means you really wanted to know.

      •  that's a disingenuous response (0+ / 0-)

        for both candidate's partisans, and frankly its getting worn out. Obviously, both candidates--every candidate running for President--has reams of policy positions and issues. They both have them, and for the zillionth time, they're pretty close.

        They aren't campaigning on them. Those independents and moderates and Republicans ("Obamacans") that everybody is so enamored of "capturing" and is so hyped about attracting, they are not doing so because either candidate is answering the questions Mcjoan has posited here.

        In fact, it is the other way around: the marketing efforts of both campaigns are emphasizing not their political ideology, but their very lack thereof.

        •  So let me get this straight (0+ / 0-)

          the real complaint is that Obama is winning over the other team but that he's somehow cheating because he's not making his very progressive views more public??

          You think the independents and crossovers need to be protected from Obama?

          You don't want anyone else in our club, is that it?

          There's some questions I'd like answered.

  •  Thanks, mcjoan. (16+ / 0-)

    As things stand now, I'm going to have to work hard to even feel lukewarm about either of these two remaining candidates, and you've expressed the reasons why.

  •  I agree with all of mcjoan's questions (and have (17+ / 0-)

    her attitude, and want to add my own):

    What I want to know is will the candidates respect the separation of church and state and abolish the Office of Faith Based Initiatives.

    What I want to know is will the candidates use the power of the bully pulpit to advocate for equality for GLBT Americans, and sign legislation to that effect.

    What I want to know is will the candidates work with Congress to end and reverse consolidation of the media.

    What I want to know is will the candidates work with Congress to pass comprehensive federal election reform, for fully federally financed campaigns in the future?

    Populist firestorm. Sweep the right from power. It's the only way. (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:49:46 AM PST

  •  Let's Hope (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom, jlms qkw

    That our leaders are not found wanting. At all levels.

    "Vice President Cheney is expanding the administration's policy on torture to include tortured logic" Sen. Dick Durbin D-IL

    by Tuba Les on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM PST

  •  This should be (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jlms qkw

    a no-brainer, but, politics being what it is, I doubt we will get the unadorned truth you/we seek.  I do think both are capable but I am curious as much about who would surround them than about them.  I keep looking just below the surface to see who has quality people close-by.  I'm sure someone else knows more about the advisors and staffers than I.

    -7.62, -7.28 "We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace." - Walter Mondale

    by luckylizard on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:50:03 AM PST

  •  sounds like Dean was talking about Hillary.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eltee

    That is the speech that got me involved and it rings through my head as I work to get Obama elected!

  •  too soon to find out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jlms qkw

    You won't get answers to these questions because most voters, even in the Democratic primaries just have not been paying enough attention and it is so much more strategically beneficial for the candidates to just stick with the big image pitches that have been working for them.  The primary calendar is so compressed that I don't expect that approach to change.

    The general election is another story altogether.

    Any of these "What I want to know is..." questions will be a bullet for any Republican and mana in comparison for any Democrat...even a Democrat anyone deems too corporatist, centrist, etc.

    Republican't Leadership is a dangerous combination of cut-backs and incompetence.

    by casamurphy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:51:04 AM PST

  •  Great Diary! (11+ / 0-)

    And to add to the "What I want to know" list:

    What I want to know is will you revise the Statement of National Interest so that this country will not use its military and economic powers to prop up dictators who support the agenda of multinational corporations.

    Will you promote international economic justice?

  •  Obama has many of the answers you seek (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ybruti

    On signing statements, Obama has explicitly said that he would not use them to circumvent the laws that he signs; and further, he said that he would use them sparingly and only in the traditional (pre-Bush) sense of clarifying what he thinks are the Constitutional issues involved.

    Obama wants to change not just the post-Bush policy in Iraq, but to change the "mindset" that got us there to begin with.

    On bumbling cronies and ideologues, Obama will sign an executive order further restricting lobbyists from jumping ship from or into government -- stopping the old revolving door, as it's called. Health care panels will be broadcast on C-SPAN.

    Obama has already worked on expanding health care benefits for veterans (as has Clinton).

    He voted against immunity for telecoms in the warrantless wiretapping scandal (again, as has Clinton).

    He has renounced torture; and in fact his opposition to torture is deeper than you may know -- he sponsored and got passed a then-controversial bill to videotape police interrogations in Illinois in order to stop the beatings and coerced "confessions." I remember this when I think about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

    Others can weigh in...  This is a partial list.

    •  Follow-up: Obama responses to Charlie Savage Q&A (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eleanora, dus7, metacomet

      Obama's position on key Constitutional issues is here. Key statements:

      I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

      The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

      As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.

      I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.

      I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

      The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.

      Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.

      The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

      The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

      •  But... (0+ / 0-)

        "The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes."

        Not entirely true.  He, and Clinton, are in favor of a non-public federal database of emails/online identifiers that designated entities would use to monitor Internet usage and block access to their websites of said identifiers.

        Which tends to call into question his teaching on Constitutional law.

        Mr. Cheney, tear down this wall!

        by Badmoon on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:28:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That may be Hillary's position, not Obama's (0+ / 0-)

          From Obama's website:

          Safeguard our Right to Privacy: The open information platforms of the 21st century can also tempt institutions to violate the privacy of citizens. Dramatic increases in computing power, decreases in storage costs and huge flows of information that characterize the digital age bring enormous benefits, but also create risk of abuse. We need sensible safeguards that protect privacy in this dynamic new world. As president, Barack Obama will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy.

            1. To ensure that powerful databases containing information on Americans that are necessary tools in the fight against terrorism are not misused for other purposes, Barack Obama supports restrictions on how information may be used and technology safeguards to verify how the information has actually been used.
            2. Obama supports updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law.
            3. Obama will also work to provide robust protection against misuses of particularly sensitive kinds of information, such as e-health records and location data that do not fit comfortably within sector-specific privacy laws.
            4. Obama will increase the Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement budget and will step up international cooperation to track down cyber-criminals so that U.S. law enforcement can better prevent and punish spam, spyware, telemarketing and phishing intrusions into the privacy of American homes and computers.

          •  Then Explain (0+ / 0-)

            why he was one of the first to co-sponsor S.431.  The bill is not restricted to those on conditional release.

            Mr. Cheney, tear down this wall!

            by Badmoon on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:43:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think it's a good bill (0+ / 0-)

              Text of bill authorizes social networking sites to compare their registered user list to the federal database of convicted sex offenders. More importantly, the government is not collecting personal data of every user of said sites; rather, the site itself is doing the checking, not the government. And finally, the site's legal officer must sign a statement that information they discover in that federal database "shall not be disclosed for any purpose other than for comparing the database."

              With its multiple privacy safeguards, it seems like S.431 protects civil liberties quite well to me.

              •  Bad Bill That Sets A Precedent (0+ / 0-)

                It's state sanctioned censorship/surveillance.  Under threat of criminal prosecution, citizens must provide email addresses and Internet identifiers to the federal government.  In turn, this non-public database is provided to designated third parties, who use the privacy information to deny those subject to the registry freedom to access the Internet.

                It's not limited to those on conditional release, those with computer crimes, or those with actual sex offenses.  It applies to anyone on the registry, which includes juveniles, Romeo and Juliet convictions, streakers, public urinators, and Fitzroy Barnaby.

                By definition it applies to virtually every interactive website, including Kos. Nothing in the bill restricts the government from using the info at will, including the surveillance of citizens engaging in free speech.

                Just as troubling is the origin of the bill, Rupert Murdoch, who needed protection from a state AG task force that wanted MySpace design and functionality changes.  Changes that Murdoch refused for two years.

                Given that the bill will do little if anything to protect minors, and no documented evidence was ever presented justifying the need for the bill, what does the bill actually accomplish?  And who actually benefits?  

                The CDT presents a solid breakdown of the serious issues related to this bill and others.

                Mr. Cheney, tear down this wall!

                by Badmoon on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:03:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Clinton key statements (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sakitume, ranee, Montague

      when answering the same Q&A

      * [re: can the president conduct survelliance without judicidal warrants] No. The President is not above the law.

      * I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization.

      * I have opposed the Bush Administration's abuse of signing statements, and as President, I would not use signing statements to disagree on policy grounds with legislation passed by Congress or as an end run around the veto.

      * Q: Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants? A: No.

      * Q: If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute? A: No.

      * The international human rights treaties that the U.S. has joined represent an historic advance for the cause of human freedom. Under our Constitution, they also are the law of the land, and the President has the same duty to comply with them as with any other valid law.

      * I have long believed that the right to habeas corpus offers fundamental protection against unchecked government power. It is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The Supreme Court should reaffirm this principle in the Boumediene case now pending and correct the mistake Congress made when it attempted to rescind habeas corpus through the Military Commissions Act.

      * The Bush Administration has acted unconstitutionally in failing to comply with FISA, failing to adhere to Congress's prohibitions on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and attempting to hold enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo without review, to name a few examples. More fundamentally, I reject the basic premise of the Bush Administration's view that Executive Power is not subject to the rule of law or to constitutional checks and balances.

  •  What Are You Goiung To Do (9+ / 0-)

    about the use of the public owned airwaves and the concentration of broadcast spectrum in the hands of the few. Will there be an obligation to air controversial topics of public concern? Will that be tied to relicensing and will the licensing period be shortened? If fact what will you do to eliminate industry control of the agencies who should be monitoring them?

  •  The neo cons have been in power for 28 years. (8+ / 0-)

    This is something I say over and over again, when people want to attack the Clintons or any democrat. The way they have power is dirty. It's power, not based on democracy, votes, popularity. Power based on fear, money, graft and illegal activities.

    The neo cons that helped Nixon get away with his illegal behaviors are the same ones arguing for unitary executive privilege today. Same ones. They have NEVER been punished. NEVER been truly called out. Why?? Because they have power and money in ways the democrats are just starting to understand. We are just getting caught up.

    These people have killed for money they put in their pockets. They have "chosen" war. They have pitted sunni against shite. They have refused to save dying people after Katrina. They don't like black people OR women.

    They fight dirty, and so well that many of you out there repeat their talking points without fact, against the Clintons. We have to hold them accountable. We have to refuse to accept unacceptable behavior. We have to stop enabling them.

    The Clintons accomplished a hell of a lot during their 8 years and turned the republicans on their heads. They hated the Clintons BECAUSE they were effective. They are criminals. Truly.

    The greatest gift you can contribute to the goal of world peace is to heal.

    by wavpeac on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:52:28 AM PST

  •  Come on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lilly, Blue Letter

    We know victory goes to the candidates who can lure some voters from the other side. In the case of the Democrats, that means conservatives, libertarians, independents, many of whom don't see things the same way as you or I do. The candidate who answers less of your questions could win the nomination. I think it's obvious why your (our) questions won't be answered in the heat of a close campaign. It would be political suicide. You're just going to have to guess who you think would answer them correctly. My guess - and mine alone - is Obama.

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:54:08 AM PST

  •  Those aren't questions. Dean asked questions. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jlms qkw

    Vote for Hillary, dump Howard Dean, bring back McAuliffe, end people-powered politics and restore triangulation.

    by expatjourno on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:54:34 AM PST

  •  You're going to be disappointed (0+ / 0-)

    There was plenty of chances for those questions to be clarified during the debates.   That you should still feel as you do means you expect more from politicians than you will get. All you can go on is their past personal record of truth.

  •  This primary has officially (5+ / 0-)

    stopped making sense to me. It feels like our candidates have somehow gone back to the rhetoric of the 1960s by way of promising to reject the politics of the 1960s.  They've rejected the divisiveness of recent politics, but promised to deliver the policies those divisive politics were advancing.  Everyone says they have the same anti-War position that Dean had, but  none of them advanced  Dean's position when they had the opportunity.  Etc.,etc.,etc.

    I mean...my hands are up in the air--I'm officially lost.

  •  I didn´t find that Obama or Clinton (9+ / 0-)

    answered those questions sufficiently.

    So, I voted for the best candidate by far, JRE. He answered all of those questions.

    He can still pick up delegates and influence the platform. He did not withdraw from the race; he suspended his campaign.

  •  Seriously, mcjoan... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StevenW, stephdray

    You're pretty much running the litany of what the two Dem candidates have been running on.

    Both candidates gave written responses to 10 constitutional questions and both were quite explicit about turning back the clock on Bush's abuses.

    On the issue of preemptive war, Obama said in the last debate he wanted not only to end the war but to end the mindset that led to the war.  This may be a bit too politic for you, but I'm not sure how else you'd interpret it.

    NOLA could certainly get more play, but for the rest of it, aren't you being a little cranky?

  •  I lift my glass to the awful truth (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, eleanora, dus7, mcmom, CanyonWren

    which you can't reveal to the ears of youth
    except to say it isn't worth a dime...

    Ah we're lonely, we're romantic
    and the cider's laced with acid
    and the Holy Spirit's crying, "Where's the beef?"
    And the moon is swimming naked
    and the summer night is fragrant
    with a mighty expectation of relief

    Leonard Cohen's Closing Time.   It feels like a cubist portrait of a relationship - the initial heady rush, the hot sticky middle and the bittersweet look back.  There's the desire to lose oneself in the surge of emotion, to be free of worry and pain, even if only for a short time.

    I've been there and done that, more than once.  Let's just cut to the chase, skip the sizzle, and serve up that steak.

    Primary season: All sizzle, no steak.

    by Fabian on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM PST

  •  i expect very little change, but at least (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, SecondComing

    i can stand the sight of hillary and obama, whereas bush and cheney are sickening in sight and sound.

  •  Ok, this is way cheesy, mcjoan (11+ / 0-)

    But I just got kind of choked up reading your post.

    Direct link to a video of his speech in this diary.

    Damn.  Great post.


    The sun is in the east/Even though the day is done/Two suns in the sunset/Could be the human race is run...

    by Page van der Linden on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:00:10 AM PST

  •  You have helped articulate (6+ / 0-)

    why I have had a difficult time picking a candidate this year, because no single candidate was addressing these questions. For awhile I backed Dodd because he spoke to defending and restoring the Constitution. When he dropped I went to Edwards, and now having mailed in an early ballot for Super Tuesday, I have voted for Obama.

    Last night I watched his speech in St. Louis and he did start to answer some of these questions. He did speak to defending and obeying the Constitution; he did say he would close Guantanamo. His and his wife's most recent speeches are making me more comfortable with my vote and are encouraging me to reactivate again.

    There are many more questions, though. I agree with the first commenter here, your list could be the foundation of a Platform or a manifesto. Thanks for this.

    You ethanol shills are ruining this site. Vote weed for a better America. ~ ben masel

    by cosmic debris on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:03:00 AM PST

  •  I want to know if bipartisanSHIT w/ right wing (7+ / 0-)

    nuts is dead?

    for decades we've been playing a game of football where we always have 80 yards to go --

    after every play we run back to our own 20 yard line so we aren't ... gag choke puke ... divisive

    OR, when they have the ball, the game starts where they only have 20 yards,or less, to score!

    to hell with compromising and reaching across the aisle and

    NOT getting people to pull their heads outta their asses about how their getting screwed cuz the thugs are gonna lie and call you 'divisive'!

    ugh, of course they're gonna LIE about what you're saying when you're saying to people they're getting screwed and they better get their face outta the pizza box and get their asses off the couch.

    since they're screwing hte bottom 95% of us,

    WHY should our side give a shit if their side doesn't like us! THEY SHOULDN'T!

    I want to know when ya'll are gonna stop playing patty cake with fascists.

    rmm.  

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:03:05 AM PST

  •  You are right to ask specific questions. Mine is (4+ / 0-)

    whether each candidate advocates an American Empire or an American Republic.

    To me, if we keep pursuing policies that support the idea of empire, we are doomed to fall. Unless the very idea of empire is abandoned, we will continue to meddle in other nations' affairs, resulting in unneccessary wars and suffering. Is this what Barack Obama means when he says he is "not against all wars, just dumb wars"? I'd like to hear his views on empire spelled out.

    I assume Hillary would continue the imperial policies of her husband. But I'd like to hear her questioned on this.

    As far as who can win, I think Obama offers much more upside than Hillary. He brings in new voters, independents, moderate Republicans, and has successfully branded himself as the agent of change. Hillary's latest TV ad shows a skydiver plummeting through the sky, symbolizing the economy - with Hillary being the parachute that opens. To me, that's just selling fear. That's a Republican meme, if you ask me. Hope may be a vague product to try to hawk - but it beats fear by a long shot.

    Interestingness.org "Politics is the entertainment arm of Industry." - Zappa

    by CheeseMoose on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:03:15 AM PST

  •  Obama and Independents (0+ / 0-)

    What I want to know is what are Obama's detailed positions that seem to attract Independents and at the same time attract the most liberal Democrats.

    One minute he sounds like Joe Lieberman, e.g. reach across the aisle, bi-partisan this and that, and the next, a bleeding heart Kennedy liberal.

    Just doesn't make sense to me.

    •  As I understand it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StevenW, ROADRUNNER DEM

      he wants to reach across the aisle in order to bring them over to our side.  I read something that said he did this in Illinois.  If you think about it this is what Dean was talking about too - remember the pickup truck comment?  I think it's also the reason why he's going after a 50 state strategy as the head of the DNC.

      •  There's a big difference (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        badger, Boorad

        between "reaching across the aisle" and a 50-state strategy.

        One is arguably capitulation, the other is fighting for what you believe in anywhere and everywhere.

        •  Both mean reaching out to Republicans (0+ / 0-)

          I remember that there were quite a few Republicans at my Dean meetup years ago.  What Dean talked about was standing up for our beliefs, he argued that once we did that more people would agree with us regardless of their political affiliation.  I was won over by Michelle Obama who I heard basically say the same thing.  Barack has a tone which appeals to Republicans while arguing for progressive ideals.  He's not perfect in my eyes, but I do think that his approach will help us win.  

          •  A catch phrase is not an argument (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            badger

            He is reaching out to the other side by what? Saying he is reaching out? talking about fixing problems?

            He isn't reaching out (and neither is Hillary) by trying to convince them that the Left political ideology is the correct one; to the contrary, he is saying, "We can ignore our political differences."

            Actually, that is exactly what we can't ignore in trying to have a governing ideology that can affect political change.

            •  By saying (0+ / 0-)

              and I quote "let's disagree without being disagreeable."

              What I remember from going to Iowa four years ago is that there are a whole lot of voters out there who vote based on emotion rather than policy.  No matter how angry I may be about what has happened, I also realize that for many voters tone matters.  I think that by saying that we should work together he at least manages to get those folks to listen to him.  If you look at the policy changes he is supporting, they are fairly progressive.  He doesn't have to bluntly say "I am bringing you over to vote for a progressive ideology" he does it by saying we can all work together and then describing policy ideas which I tend to agree with.

        •  Consider examples: (0+ / 0-)

          Obama reached out across the aisle and worked with Richard Lugar on really good nuclear nonproliferation legislation. He also reached across the aisles to Tom Coburn, and passed some very strong ethics legislation, including (my personal favorite) a searchable database of recipients of federal contracts. In both cases, he found Republicans who agreed with him on a specific point, and worked with them to get good legislation passed.

          Personally, I don't see what's wrong with this.

          •  It's easy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ROADRUNNER DEM

            to reach across when the issue isn't controversial. I don't get all these folks who suddenly want to "reach out". Isn't that the reason why so many here are unhappy with the current Dems in Congress, too much reaching, i.e. compromising, and not ehough action?

            •  AGREE! I really dislike the 'GANG OF 14' (0+ / 0-)

              I didnt elect anyone to compromise on important issues!  The compromise is always one-sided...towards the republican view!  It's just like the fairytale that some are 'moderates', whatever that means.  If it's a matter of right or wrong...how can you be 'moderate' about it?  I know whereof I speak...my senator is ARLEN SPECTER/PA.  He was 'moderate' about Jonathan Bolton, Michael Mukasey, Judges Roberts & Alito & Thomas, and so many more things I cant mention (you should see copies of all the emails I've sent him).
              'Making nice' in a back room when issues of importance hang in the balance is worse that warm spit!  A person should vote for what's right (correct) without being ashamed of their position.  THAT'S what we elect them to do.  
              If any of his staff are reading this (fat chance), tell him to stop worrying about the Patriots and worry about the Justice Dept, signing statements, war crimes, improper contracts, BLACKWATER, warrantless wire-tapping & Mukassey's conflicts of interest (son/Verizon) & torture!
              Get control of Congress & make those bastards pay!

              Where people fear the government there is tyrany: "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson

              by ROADRUNNER DEM on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:08:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I think IMHO that most Independents (0+ / 0-)

          are former Democrats that went Republican (REAGAN-era) & have switched to 'indep' status because it's too embarrassing to admit they're lost in the Republican party.  So, they've switched to 'indep' for now, and after they've voted a few times, they'll  switch back to DEMOCRATS!
          WELCOME BACK!  What took you so long?  

          Where people fear the government there is tyrany: "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson

          by ROADRUNNER DEM on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:54:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I agree with what you're saying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dus7

    Every point you make in your personal list of "What I want to know" is eminently reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that if the Republican party wasn't so damaged by letting itself be led by the nose by radicals for so long, I'd say that the points would  be durned near considered non-partisan.

    Regarding partisanship, Michael Orseskes writing today in the NYT Week in Review ends with an interesting comment:

    With the tide running for the Democrats this year, the campaign season will show whether it is the misfortune of partisan Democrats that their moment has arrived just as the country has had it with partisanship.

    I'd claim that the facts that partisanship seems to be on the wain during a Democratic ascendency are linked.  Most Democrats are pragmatists, who judge an idea on its merits. We don't judge an idea solely on who originated it. Most Republicans are authoritarians, who blindly follow the present leader into whatever ditch he steers them into. For that reason, I think it is natural that there are more calls for consensus now, and I'm not scared that we Democrats are being rolled again. I think our ideas in general are superior, and can dominate for a long time, and that we don't have to do this in the Bush-style 51/49 shove it down peoples throats kind of way that the nation has had it with.

    "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that ain't so." - Mark Twain

    by orrg1 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:03:43 AM PST

  •  What I want to know. (6+ / 0-)

    What is the detailed plan of action for investigation and prosecution of George W Bush, Richard B Cheney, and any aiders and abettors and sundry henchmen of bushco?
    What is the plan that will be implemented from day one; to forever prevent another bushco?

    St. Ronnie was an asshole.

    by manwithnoname on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:03:58 AM PST

  •  McJoan's Questions (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, mentaldebris, hoolia, eleanora, dus7

    From my perspective, I want to know the answers to the questions McJoan posed as well, but I don't necessarily want the candidates to answer them.  That may sound really weird, but talk is cheap.  And sometimes dangerous.  It's an odd political dance, but I sometimes want to know the answers to these questions in my heart without giving Republicans an opportunity to twist things to their benefit.

    So here's my take on McJoan's questions:

    What I want to know is that you will renounce the doctrine of preemptive war.

    There is no question in my mind that both candidates take a different approach to war than George Bush does.  If either candidate saw clear, present and catastrophic danger, I think they would strike.  But in my heart, I am guessing that Hillary Clinton's standards for clear, present and catastrophic danger will be lower than Obama's.

    What I want to know is that you will get our troops out of Iraq before the end of your first term in office, without leaving permanent bases.

    Both candidates have said they would, barring extraordinary circumstances, and I believe them.

    What I want to know is that you will find bin Laden, that you will take seriously the threat that al Qaeda still poses and that you will know where and how to fight them.

    There is no question in my mind that they do, but Clinton has said so, and given the better indication that she means it.

    What I want to know is that you will take care of the men and women who gave their all for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, that you will end the shameful lack of funding, services, and treatment these brave men and women face when they come home, and that you will ensure they get the help that they not only need, but deserve.

    I think both candidates have actually acquitted themselves remarkably well on this question.  Talked meaningfully about it, and convinced me.

    What I want to know is that you will unequivocally renounce the use of torture and will agree to abide by the Geneva Conventions and international treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war.

    Obama has explicitly said so and forcefully.  Clinton has explicitly said so less forcefully.  This is a major concern for me--in fact, if I am a single issue voter on anything, this is it. On this matter, I trust Obama more than Clinton but I trust both more than the GOP.

    What I want to know is that you will shut Guantanamo and every secret prison down as soon as humanly possible, and that the detainees in them will receive justice.

    Neither candidate has said so explicitly within my hearing, and I'd like to hear them say so, but I feel that both of them would.

    What I want to know is that you will end the warrantless and illegal surveillance of American citizens by our intelligence agencies.

    Both candidates have said how they feel about this and voted accordingly in recent days, but on this issue I trust Obama more than Clinton.

    What I want to know is that you will hold any corporation that aided government in illegally spying on American citizens accountable to the rule of law.

    Ditto above.

    What I want to know is that your cabinet and executive offices will not be stacked with bumbling ideologues and cronies.

    Hillary Clinton will most certainly stack her cabinet with cronies, though they probably won't be bumbling.  The Clintons are attracted to talent.  Obama, by contrast, will certainly not stack his cabinet with cronies.  In fact, I worry he will stack it half with Republicans.  He is very fond of the book "Team of Rivals."

    What I want to know is that you, your Vice President and every one of your executive officers will be subject to the rule of law, just like everyone else.

    On this issue, I have faith in Obama.  Less faith in Clinton.

    What I want to know is that you will respect Congress as a co-equal branch of government.

    On this issue, I have faith in Obama, and much less in Clinton.  But both of them, having been in the Senate, will be better on this issue than the GOP.

    What I want to know is that you will never attempt to circumvent Congress's laws with signing statement.

    Both of them seem to have contempt for signing statements.

    What I want to know is that you appoint qualified Supreme Court justices who believe in the rule of law and in the fundamental privacy protections for all Americans under decided law.

    On this issue, I feel absolutely confident that Hillary Clinton will appoint wonderful Supreme Court Justices.  I am, conversely, terrified of the judges that Obama will appoint, given his penchant for wanting to find compromise.

    What I want to know is that you are going to break the stranglehold of dependence our country has on foreign oil.

    I have absolute faith that both of them will pursue an ambitious energy program to get us off oil.

    What I want to know is that you will make rebuilding New Orleans for all of the people of New Orleans a top domestic priority, and that another debacle like this administration's response to Katrina will never happen on your watch.

    I have absolute faith that neither of them would respond to Katrina the way Bush did, or rather, did not.  I do not, however, have faith that either of them will make New Orleans a major priority in their administration.

    What I want to know is that you see and understand just how massively off-track our country has gone, and that you have some idea about how to right it, and the ability to do so.

    I don't think either candidate understands how massively off-track our country has gone because both of them have been a part of its derailment. However, here, I would have to give the edge to Hillary.

    I want to know that you will be willing to tell the American people what we need to hear, not just what we want to hear.

    On different issues, they both will.  I have to give Senator Clinton huge props for her truth-telling when it comes to health care.  She's extremely candid and persuasive.  I suspect this is because she is comfortable on this issue.  When it comes to other issues, where she is insecure, she will dissemble.  Obama is the same way, but on different points.  I think he tells the absolute truth about national security, but when it comes to hard issues about the Constitution and placing blame where it belongs, he lies in the name of harmony.

    I want to know that you can be a leader.

    I know they both can be.

    I want to know that you will give us our country back.

    I'm not sure either of them can, though I think they'll both try.  I think Obama has the better chance of doing it, which is why I support him.

    Stephanie Dray
    of Jousting for Justice, a lefty blog with a Maryland tilt.

    by stephdray on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:04:16 AM PST

  •  Damn, mcjoan! I am so glad you said it!! (6+ / 0-)

    Thank you, John and Elizabeth, for your compassion, strength, and moral integrity. Be well - we continue the fight, together.

    by Blue Waters Run Deep on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:05:08 AM PST

  •  I have to disagree with you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eumaies, eltee

    I listened to Obama's speech last night and he did answer many of your questions:

    1. Yes, he will Gitmo and restore Habeaus Corpus.
    1. Yes, he will start withdrawing troops by 2009.
    1. Yes, he does denounce preemptive war and believes we must negotiate with everyone.
    1. yes, he does take Bin Laden seriously.  Remember all the "flak" about pusing Pakistan to go after him?
    1. Yes, he does renounce torture.
    1. Yes, he will increase funding for vets.

    I could go on and on.  I don't if ALL of your questions were answered but many were.  It makes we wondsr - are we really listening or are we being distracted by our mistrust for the process?

    •  they just miss Dean (0+ / 0-)

      I don't think they really want answers from anyone but him. There were a lot of Edwards' supporters out there wanting the candidates to take up his causes and issues (and hopefully they will). I think this is the same thing, only with Dean.

      Otherwise, I can't think of why they wouldn't just go do the research like the rest of us did.

      •  yes, i miss dean & edwards and fwiw (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        badger

        NEITHER of these candidates can compare to either of them in my eyes.

        "Don't believe everything you think" Buddhist saying

        by hester on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:40:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just don't get it (0+ / 0-)

          How exactly is Edwards so different from Hillary and Obama?

          War in Iraq

          NCLB

          Patriot Act

          Trade with China

          He voted for all of these things, how does this represent what Dean was talking about?  

          I agree that he at least managed to change his mind on some of these issues.  I liked him and would have voted for him if he had won Iowa, but I am really getting tired of Edwards supporters ignoring the facts about his voting record and attacking the other two.  All three have problems.

          •  All I said was I missed him (0+ / 0-)

            and the others didn't compare. It's not my job to show you how he was different. Who said I ignored any facts. He's out. The others aren't. I miss him, whether you get it or not.

            "Don't believe everything you think" Buddhist saying

            by hester on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:42:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think it's the passion in the other (0+ / 0-)

            candidates that we miss.  I personally miss Joe Biden's experience, knowledge, plan to 'guide' the Iraqi government according to their own constitution towards peace in the different ethnic regions.   I miss Dodd's passion for the Constitution and views on education.  I miss Dennis Kucinich's passion to end the war and support Unions.  I miss Edwards passion for the down-trodden!  He spent more time in New Orleans than anyone.  It's a good thing that we have these feelings for those candidates...they spent a lot of time & energy in their quest to better this country.  If good people dont put themselves (& their families) out there for us, we'll continue to get the 'worst of the worst ie: Bush-Cheney.  
            I dont like or trust John McCain...I dont think anyone should be elected 'just because' he was a war hero (pow).  His years in a pow camp did not provide him with any more insite into running a war or leading a country than most others.  He's an opportunist.  Otherwise, he would have stuck up for John Kerry when Kerry was being 'swift-boated'.
            So, we need the passion of good people...thanks to all of them!  

            Where people fear the government there is tyrany: "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson

            by ROADRUNNER DEM on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:24:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  It must be a Northwest attitude (10+ / 0-)

    I couldn't agree more mcjoan, on all your points, but this is the one that sums them all up:

    I want to know that you will be willing to tell the American people what we need to hear, not just what we want to hear.

    Without that, we ain't gonna get an answer to the others.

    A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.

    by Terre on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:06:54 AM PST

  •  Thank you, Joan. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, SaraBeth, mcmom, rhutcheson

    This is a wonderful post. I, too came in with What I Wanna Know. I am very appreciative of your additions to to list. Wouldn't we love to hear Dean stand up and give your ammended list speech somewhere! At the top of his lungs.

  •  Sad to say, but neither one of them (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    benny05, dus7, Badmoon

    is likely to renounce, as President, many of the expanded powers that Bush has claimed.

  •  This diary reminds me of this... (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    Both statements are completely correct.

  •  There is no Dean (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dus7

    I've been trying to get fired up about a candidate, but I just can't do it this time around.  I can't promise that any candidate is going to address all of those questions, but I do think that Obama is the better option.  I don't hate Hillary, but I do think that she is exactly the kind of Democrat that Dean was talking about and that I was furious with four years ago.  I don't really care what she says now, her vote for Iraq is destroying America much like her vote for NCLB is destroying American education.  I have zero faith in her ability to stand up for Democratic principles when polls change.  I also worry that the Clintons will not give back the powers that Cheney has illegally stolen for the executive branch.

    Obama isn't perfect either, but I do think that he is more reachable.  He is dependent on his grassroots supporters for both fund raising and GOTV efforts.  This makes him much closer to Dean in his approach to politics, and makes him beholden to the many rather than the few.  While at first I worried that he was reaching out to Republicans too much, I now realize that he wants to reach out to them in order to bring them over to our side.  If he wins the presidency he is planning on using the grassroots to convince congress to get legislation passed.  If he is planning on using them in this way I think he will be much more open to listening to the grassroots if he makes a mistake.  I also think it says a lot that he was willing to be against the war from the start.

  •  Enjoy your posts, but do disagree on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranee, mcmom

    your statement that the media are not entirely to blame. IMO, the conventional media, on their own, generated the meme of a fight between Sen.s Clinton and Obama, and both sides, regretably, have taken the bait .... not as much as the media would like, but enough to keep it only one level above the mud-wrestling match that the TV spokesmodels would prefer to cover--as it allows more time to pay attention to make-up issues, instead of research on the real substantive issues. IMO, there is plenty of room for pundits to just take the media to task for their abysmal coverage of a very serious fork in the road for the electorate .... and the big media are much more comfortable with the corrupt process that protects the Rupert Murdoch's of the world. This election should also be a big wake-up call for Viacom/CBS, GE/NBC, and Disney/ABC--The three blind mice, as Joe Conasson so aptly termed them in his book of the same name. Law and Order: Media Trustbuster Unit.

  •  The Answer You Should Hear... (8+ / 0-)

    This week Bill Moyers reports what books the presidential candidates say they would bring with them to the White House.  

    Here are the candidate answers:

    SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith because we may be entering some pretty shaky economic times.

    SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Doris Kearns Goodwin's book TEAM OF RIVALS. It was a biography of Lincoln, and he was confident enough to be willing to have these dissenting voices.

    MIKE HUCKABEE: There's a great book by Francis Schaeffer that had a real influence on me, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? And it talks about the dignity and worth of each individual.

    SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: I would certainly bring a (my) copy of the Constitution because there apparently was not a copy in the Bush White House the best I can determine. So I would bring THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.

    MITT ROMNEY: JOHN ADAMS by David McCullough. A truly great leader who made a difference for America, and his example is one I'd want to follow.

    http://www.pbs.org/...

    h/t to Masslib
    http://www.mydd.com/...

    "Hope has to be made a reality in politics." ~ Hillary Clinton

    by SignalSuzie on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:09:41 AM PST

    •  I was nodding right along (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaraBeth

      until I got to Huckabee.

      Then I had to do a quick search.

      His choice is perfectly in line with his beliefs but not at all what I want in my President.  No thanks!

      Primary season: All sizzle, no steak.

      by Fabian on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:36:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was nodding right along when I read Clinton's (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        badger, ranee, OCdem, Fabian, CanyonWren

        But, I've read Doris Kearn's Goodwin's book on Lincoln, and I can tell you that if Obama thinks that is any way to run an administration, he's more foolish than I thought. It was a recipe for disaster; backstabbing galore, not the fantasy of good will Obama think's he's presenting here. And, does this mean he's going to hire fucking Joe Lieberman, his previous Senate Mentor, for a cabinet post?

        Oy.

        No, the answer that most resonates with me is Clinton's answer: THE CONSTITUTION.

        "Hope has to be made a reality in politics." ~ Hillary Clinton

        by SignalSuzie on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:45:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What I want to know (5+ / 0-)

    is why our candidates aren't showing us how well they lead in their jobs.  You know, the Senate ones that they were elected to fill and fill wisely.

  •  what you want to know (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, ranee, Fabian

    McJoan, I would vote for you in a second.  But you can't run for president because you haven't been singlemindedly devoted to establishing credentials and you weren't lucky enough to have a career evolve in that manner.

    You'll note that Howard Dean asked all the right questions and got clobbered once they started counting votes.  Clinton and Obama and their teams know what it takes to run a successful campaign for the presidency.    

    They can't afford to target you or me.  And Hillary can't really afford to show all of who she is because she has to emphasize her "masculine" side--and on and on.  It isn't the fault of the candidates that they are operating within a political system and culture that forces them to trim their sails.  We have said for years that we want someone who WILL WIN.  That's why I can accept all the hedging and strategic positioning.  And why I will vote for Hillary on Tuesday, because I know enough about her to read between the lines and I am less confident about Obama.

  •  The Next War. Venezuela? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    andreww

    No matter who's elected, the permanent government will push for an effort to topple Chavez, likely with a staged incident at the Colombian border.

    It's hard to find anything on Obama's attitude here.

    The Clinton's are close to the Colombian rightists, with Mark Penn actually employed by both the govt and rightwing parties.

    Democrat for US Senate, Wisconsin 2012.

    by ben masel on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:14:43 AM PST

    •  What would you have Obama say about Venezuela? (0+ / 0-)

      (Supposing he wins)
      I'm not going to rule it out: presidents have a lot of institutional pressure on them. That's why it's stupid to blame them for actions of the government which are a result of a variety of factions, all of them permanent, but varying in mandate and power.

      If the Repugs, Greens, etc undermine the Dems enough, he may be forced into it to retain power. Despite what greens seem to think, you can't get anything done without sufficient control of the elected parts of government.

      However, he has said he would meet with Chavez "under the right conditions", which it seems Hillary tried to slam him for.
      http://www.barackobama.com/...
      http://vivirlatino.com/...

      However, he's also said
      "[Oil dependency] corrupts budding democracies, and gives dictators from Venezuela to Iran the power to freely defy and threaten the international community."
      http://www.barackobama.com/...
      Which is BS. Chavez was elected fairly, AFAICS, and whilst he tried to extend his term (via a referendum, which he lost and conceded without protest) it looks like he'll step down as the country's constitution requires.

      But Obama is savvy enough to know that if he says different, the RWNM will use the US media and their noisy, spoilt, friends in the Venezuelan elite along with their newspapers to jump on him.

      So he's emphasised the point that he wouldn't get too cozy with Chavez
      http://www.barackobama.com/...

  •  This is exactly what's been going aroud (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hoolia, joanneleon, Fabian, SaraBeth, dus7, mcmom

    and around in my mind.

    'Hope' and 'Experience' don't tell me what I need to know.  It sounds great but it is so simplistic before the enormous challenges we're facing.  I want one of them to start taking about the necessity of the return to the rule of law in this country.  I want to hear one of them acknowledge the horrific damage done to all of us by the wanton slaughter of a million Iraqis based on lies from the Republicans and supported by shallow calculation on the part of way too many Democrats.

    This is the manifesto both of them need to be challenged with.  Of course I'll vote for one of the two in November.  But like you McJoan, I'm just so desperate for substance.

    "Do or do not -- there is no whine." Yoda's Mom

    by Helena Handbag on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:14:48 AM PST

  •  hear hear! (0+ / 0-)

    I nominate this post for best of 2008 on DK so far. Hell yes Joan, I agreed with every word.

    I've always been of the opinion that anybody who runs for President is automatically disqualified for being crazy enough to want that much responsibility in the first place....but anybody who wants to be the 44th President is extra bananas cause they are going to have this huge universe of shit to deal with because we didn't have a legitimate 43rd President.

    Now that the race has narrowed to two, and given that the Republican candidate will likely be weak, we need to start asking both Hillary and Obama about what they're going to do to put the government back together after it was wantonly destroyed by the Cheneyite Counter-Revolution.

    •  Underestimating the Republicans (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Duke S

      I don't think that the Republican candidate will be weak, especially if it is McCain.  The corporate media moguls will attempt to shape and influence the outcome of the general election in much the same way that they have shaped the nominations.  And don't forget the favorite Republican tactic of the October Surprize.

      •  McCain (0+ / 0-)

        would be stronger in the general than Romney. But I'm willing to bet that the next President will be a Democrat. The Republicans have too many things working against them, and their coalition (corpocrats, theocrats, libertarians, and neocons) is coming apart at the seams.

        I still hope it's Romney, but if it's McCain I think we can take him....I'm just glad Rudy's ambitions have been buried.

  •  We Want Our Country Back (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jhannon, ROADRUNNER DEM

    Let's be realistic: whether the nominee is Obama or Clinton, the neocons are going to swiftboat the nominee to a truly breathtaking extent and, if that fails, they will make plans to steal the election (again). So what I want to know is: will the Democratic Party simply sit back and allow this to happen again?

    Pelosi and Reed have used the last 15 months to demonstrate that they are spineless wimps who will do everything in their power not to upset the congressional Republican minority. Imagine what kind of "leadership" they will exhibit in the months running up to the election. Then who is going to stand up for the Democrats? The celebrities? Indeed, if the neocons win again, will there even be a need for the Democratic Party?

    I'm sick to death of this Bush administration, but I'm even sicker with the Democrats' tendency to play fair with a bunch of pathological monsters and then lose. I cannot take another 4 or 8 years of neocon terror. If the Democrats can't or won't deliver, then I'll vote for a goddamn bloody revolution.    

    •  we need some real fighters in Congress! (0+ / 0-)

      I sometimes wonder if some of our illustrous leaders are being 'blackmailed' for their votes.  Even if it meant the end of my political career, I could never vote the way some of these folks vote!
      When Tom Delay (the Hammer) was still running things, I remember one particular vote where the yes & no's were 2 apart...in the Dems favor.  The presiding president (a Rep) kept the vote 'open' for over 30 minutes (on a 15 min vote) until the votes changed...then immediately gaveled the vote closed.  They won.  All the while this was going on, Rep Sheila Jackson Lee and others were asking for a 'point of order' and objecting...to no avail.
      How else could you explain not impeaching Bush & Cheney?  How else do you explain why they even send bills to the Pres. knowing he'll (not veto) change them w/a signing statement!  Dont give him anything!  Shut the Government down!  Wake some people up!  Bang your shoes (high heels) on the desk!   Flatten the tires on Rove's or Cheney's SUV's!   Walk out on Bush's speeches, en masse. At least that'll make the 6:00 news.  

      Where people fear the government there is tyrany: "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson

      by ROADRUNNER DEM on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:41:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't want to vote for Hope and Change anymore! (7+ / 0-)

    Been there done that!  Like your diary I want to vote for "Substance".  Someone who will do even if it cost them a second term in office.  I'd like to see some kind of accountability of Bush and Cheney so that down the road in history they will know at least some of us cared about the Constitution.  I'd like to see the new President announce to the Iraqis the time has come for America to leave Iraq's destiny in Iraqi hands.  Even if the Defense Department tells him or her that it will lead to a 'Blood Bath' in Iraq.  Finally I'd like someone who can pronounce 'nuclear' correctly!

  •  Our System Design Prevents Them Explaining (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranee

    The combination of corporate for-profit mass media, Constitutionally protected from the people for promoting their own agenda and free to exclude others, with the pay-per-byte-per-recipient distribution model that makes intelligent discourse completely unfordable, requires that politics be run pretty much as we see.

    We cannot have rational political campaigns without radical changes to the American system.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:23:19 AM PST

  •  mcjoan, you say you want to know those things (0+ / 0-)

    but you already know that Hillary won't do half of them...

    Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

    by thereisnospoon on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:24:32 AM PST

  •  well articulated soul searching I truly believe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom, ROADRUNNER DEM

    the entire nation is engaged in. Last night i had the same discussion with my family while baby sitting.  The adults ranged through 74(me), 45(son) 38 (daughterinlaw) 11,9 (grandsons).  We are all staunch democrats including the kids who proudly told me there wasn't a single republican in their mock 4th grade class primary vote.

    Consensus: Not really, torn between wanting to 'feel good about change' and 'concerned about how to actually effect change'.  At the end of the evening all except the young ones who are firmly in the Obama camp, they want someone closer to their own age!  we remained torn.  We really want to feel good, but we are really concerned about the details of NoChild left behind, universal health care, getting out of Iraq without losing the store, alterntaive energy including wind, solar and bio-fuels, how to relaate to problems all over the globe, which one will be demonzied the least by the vast rightwing mean machine aand who is better equipped to deal with the nastiness to come, and so on and on it will go until the levers have to be pulled.

    Me, I want it all, i want a dream team that will sweep us into the 21st century on a tidal wave of competency and charisma. I always did like having my cake and eating it too.

    Underlying it all is the terrible fear of the general election, the psychological warfare that will ensue and the very real fear of a real killing. How can one not remember 1963 and 1968.  I am exhilirated and terrified at the same time.

    In the meantime i am trying to read the tealeaves as to what is the significance of Bill Richardson ands Bill Clinton watching the Superbowl together. I've even started to read Huffington posts astrological charts to diivine the oracle.

  •  Also want to know (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eleanora, Fabian, mcmom, Duke S

    that you are going to take on climate change as the overarching issue of our time and lead us to progressive and innovative solutions - even if that means a sea change our way of life.

    "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

    by delphine on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:24:54 AM PST

    •  There's no "even if" about it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      delphine

      I have to go get the numbers sometime soon, but the ones I've seen are just stunning.  Our nation uses incredible amounts of fossil fuel energy and the majority is for personal use, not business, manufacturing or other vital economic purposes.

      Primary season: All sizzle, no steak.

      by Fabian on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:32:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well put, mcjoan (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, mcmom, Duke S, CanyonWren

    Worthy of a highlight in the Op-ed section of any newspaper in America.

    Contrary to the opinion of many people posting here -People actually do still read newspapers.

    'But they'll burn ya out' The unsteady eyes dropped to the ground. "I know. They done it before" - Steinbeck

    by SecondComing on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:25:10 AM PST

  •  Do your research (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eumaies, eltee

    In as much as I love the tone of this diary posting and think that is really beautifully written I think you should do a little research. Expecting these folks to get out this very specific information in a series of mass-media debates hosted by the same people, asking the same questions is slightly off kilter. Look at their speeches given while stumping. Go to a rally or town hall. Look at their websites. The responsibility for having an informed democracy lies with US not them. I'm slightly concerned by the perception that it is the other way around; it is that supplicant mentality that gets us a current administration that stomps all over the Constitution without fear of consequence.

    I also agree with the majority assertion that you'll find the best answers to most of these questions with Senator Obama. O,r at least, you'll find that he has CONSISTENTLY held whatever opinion he has.

    Uhmmmm....Go PATS!

    •  Policy is not commitment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      desiderata, Antifish

      I just went to Obama's site.  I see lots of policy but no straight answers to the requests in this blog.

      Here's an example.

      Education is important to me but the solution lies not in policy and particularly not in fixing NCLB.  The answer is in calling us to turn off our TVs and to commit ourselves as individuals to learning.

      Here's Obama

      "I don't want to send another generation of American children to failing schools. I don't want that future for my daughters. I don't want that future for your sons. I do not want that future for America."

      That's not a commitment.  That's a weather report on Obama's feelings.

      Same kind of thing on health care:

      "We now face an opportunity — and an obligation — to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates... My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness."

      More tinkering and no stand.  We can't address our health crisis unless we get healthier.  

      And on the environment:

      Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards... And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.

      CAFE standards is not a suitable response to a great moral challenge.  

      Obama is the music man.

      •  Congratulations! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mcmom

        Good for you for investing a minute amount of time to provide yourself with more fodder for your already made decision. In as much as I may disagree with you and your assertions, having attended and watched multiple speeches and q&a sessions from both candidates, I am very pleased that you went and perused the Obama website. My post was directed more to MCJoan whom is an avowed undecided.

        •  You know nothing about me... (0+ / 0-)

          I have not made a decision.  I know in my gut that Obama is a fraud, the biggest I've seen in my 40+ years of listening to candidates after Kennedy.  I haven't voted for a Clinton yet and won't in 2008.

          I did work my butt to get Jon Tester elected, not so much for his policies but for his character.  Dry land farming in Montana is not easy.

          When a person of character runs for President, a Tester or Webb or Clark, or one of the young Democratic governors, I'll go to work for them.  But not for Obama.

          Obama supporters say it is okay that he has been MIA from a leadership role in the Senate for 3 years.  They call it a short-term sacrifice for a longer term good.  I'm okay with four years of McCain if it gives us the chance to elect a Democrat of character, accomplishment, and gravitas in 2012.  Obama is none of these.

          •  TOO MANY THOUGHT THE SAME ABOUT BUSH, (0+ / 0-)

            I'm okay with four years of McCain if it gives us the chance to elect a Democrat of character, accomplishment, and gravitas in 2012.  

            Too many thought it was okay to put the 'guy to have a beer with' in office.....look what we got! GRAVITAS....wasnt that the description of CHENEY?
            John Kerry had better ideas & is a lot more intelligent as was Al Gore.....they were belittled!  
            We cannot afford to have the Republicans control the White House for one more minute past Jan. 20, 2009 at NOON!
            Just think of the Judges that McCain would promote!  All anti-union, pro-big corporation, anti-people like BUSH-CHENEY did!
            This concerns more than a figure-head who can joke or do one liners (Reagan: there you go again).
            No....we cannot afford to have any Rep. in a position to 'cover-up' the last 8 years for the next 4 years!      

            Where people fear the government there is tyrany: "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson

            by ROADRUNNER DEM on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:55:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I now know you're a wanker. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Speak the truth (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian

    Thoughtful and well said.  If either of them (or anyone else) actually gave expression to these ideas, the outpouring of support would be overwhelming.  People are starved for substance.  I don't give a damn about "mandates" on what are weak universal health care proposals.  Say something important!

  •  Thank you (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    suswa, eleanora, Fabian, mcmom

    this is a great encapsulation of the skepticism and creative doubt we owe our Left movement.

  •  ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom, SuburbanGrrrl

    As usual, you are asking the right questions, the questions we need answered before we step into the voting booth.

    How do we get answers to these questions? I, like you, am frustrated out of my gourd at the inanities of the campaign. With a group of others, I'm trying to get some answers from policy papers by the candidates, but they don't get the sharpness of the answers we need.

    I'm also sick of the primary system. Can't we get it done in a better, more equitable, way?

    Thanks for your labors in focusing the right questions--all of them!

    Milo

    http://milosjanusoutlook.blogspot.com/

  •  With all due respect (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eumaies, tommycatnyc

    McJoan, I like your writing. These are great questions.

    But many of us asked them a long time ago and found the answers by listening to Obama, reading his work, his website, tuning into interviews where these questions were already asked and answered. We did the work.

    It gets my neckhairs up when you say with a sense of absolute certainty and authority that neither candidate has answered your questions.

    You're a better researcher and writer than that.

    Please post again when you've actually found the answers...and then we can compare notes. When people ask questions that have already been answered it usually means they aren't interested in really knowing the truth.

    Prove me wrong. :)

    •  See my post above... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Free Spirit

      What I read in McJoan's post is a request for some sign of commitment, the willingness to solve a problem no matter what.  Policy is not commitment.  I've read enough of Obama's site to recognize if as a site like all the others.

      Prove me I'm wrong.  Show me where Obama gives his word that he will solve an important problem.  Better yet show me where Obama has taken a big stand in his life and followed through on it to the end.  

      •  Well said (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KLM, mcmom

        Especially since we are talking about Dean today.  Obama strikes me as Dean without the track record.

        Sure, Dean had a lot of great positions, talked of hope, and inspired a lot of people. But what made Dean real was his track record as Governor, where he had actually delivered many of the things he was proposing. And above all, where he had put his career on the line because he believed that everyone should be treated equally under the law. I for one would never have supported him if positions, policies, and hope were all he had to offer.

        The Senate is the last bastion of white supremacy. --Andrew Gumbel

        by Free Spirit on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:58:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks, just Thanks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom

    Fwiw

    In God we trust, All others we monitor -AFTAC (-2.75, -2.67)

    by lcs on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:34:36 AM PST

  •  Correction... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranee, MA Liberal, delphine, Duke S

    Those giants of mediadom--Tim Russert, Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzer

    Don't you mean "..those giants of mediadumb"?

    Evolution IS Intelligent Design!

    by msirt on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:36:08 AM PST

  •  The real cause (0+ / 0-)

    of bankruptucy is too much spending and our government is no different.  Cutting taxes will never bankrupt this country, actually it has the opposite effect it puts more money into the government. Try a college level economics class and no offense intended please follow it up with an English Composition class.

  •  Nail Meet Hammer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom

    This is absolutely the most insightful diary I've seen so far in this election.  All the points you raise are ones which I have thought about, and which have kept me in a state of limbo about this election.  Both are fine, even fabulous candidates.  But, what is the level of commitment to our democratic republic and civil liberties?

    Today I started a diary today entitled, "Who Will Be the Ruthless Guardian of Our Constitution?" Erasing that now after this excellent diary.

  •  I'm just still wondering whether these two (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom, Duke S, ROADRUNNER DEM, CanyonWren

    are willing to play this thing "balls out" (not to be gender biased).  I mean, there is NO place for caution here.

    When FDR took office the place was in chaos.  He didn't say "I can't get XXX passed so we'll settle for XX".  He said he was going to give special interests the shaft because they'd fucked up the place.

    When war came he didn't hesitate to ask everything of us.   He confronted poverty with innovative programs unheard of previously.  

    I'm no FDR scholar but can you imagine his presidency succeeding if he'd been constantly afraid of what people said, of losing votes because he was too bold or proposed something too far from what people were used to?  

    I mean, c'mon, social security?  That's like proposing truly universal health care or something.  Rationing during WWII?  That would be like expecting us to actually do something on an individual basis about stuff like climate change!

    I want to know our next president isn't afraid to do what's necessary and right to get us out of this hole we're digging . . .

    "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

    by delphine on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:40:52 AM PST

  •  What I want to know is this (0+ / 0-)

    Why is Hillary's campaign or a surrogate doing push polling for her in CA right now?

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/...

    I know it's that kind of basic character question that I'm paying attention to since their voting records and policies are about 95% the same.  I'm sick and tired of this kind of politics. I don't see it in the Obama campaign. Hillary should knock it the hell off and condemn it.

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:43:36 AM PST

  •  I want to know what they plan to do... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, mcmom

    about re-erecting the Wall of Separation between Religion and the Government, and how they plan to root out all of the Regressive Reconstructionists that are now deeply embedded within our institutions.

  •  See, this is why the front page (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eleanora, nowheredesign, CanyonWren

    sucks sometimes.  If this had been a "recent" it would have been recced to the "reccomended"s and it would have stuck around for a lot longer.

    If anyone can come up with a whinier way of saying "great diary" I'm willing to entertain your submission. ;-P

    •  This should be a regular, featured diary (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CJB, eleanora, mcmom, CanyonWren

      Whether it's on the rec list or the front page, this should be front and center, all the time.

      We still need a lot of answers.  We need to work together to get them.  For too long, too many people on this site have forgotten that to a huge extent, we have the same goals and that we need to stay on the topic of issues so that we can get the answers we need, and we can work together to achieve those goals.

      We've been entirely ineffective as a watchdog in recent weeks and months, caught up in the candidate battles.

      "The walls between art and engineering exist only in our minds." --Theo Jansen

      by joanneleon on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:48:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The doctrine of preemptive war renounces itself (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom

    over time and extremely painfully.

    I'd say that you are not a political junkie; you are a sovereignty junky; an addict for the just and proper— the correct and righteous.

    The world is a better place because of you, and because of the stark similarity of our most powerful desires, mine is all-that-much-better.

    :)

    :::::

    ...Operation Rota is Closed... New Blog Coming Soon With Pictures!...

    by nowheredesign on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:52:57 AM PST

  •  Voters don't want substance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom

    They don't want policy, strategy or other detailed discussions.  They're bored by it, and prefer to either be inspired or outraged.

    If they did wast substantive campaigns Edwards would have locked up the nomination.

  •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

    What I want to know is that you will get our troops out of Iraq before the end of your first term in office, without leaving permanent bases.

    You want to give them four more years?

    What America needs is a Ron Paul enema -- Ralph Nader

    by indyWillie on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:54:45 AM PST

  •  politics IS beanbag. (0+ / 0-)

    governing ourselves isn't.
    go, barack!

    •  I'm not sure exactly what this means (0+ / 0-)

      "politics is beanbag."  (embarrassed look)

      "The walls between art and engineering exist only in our minds." --Theo Jansen

      by joanneleon on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:51:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good Omens - Gaiman/Pratchett (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon

        There's a lovely scene where the Demon Crowley makes a small "change" to an executive team building exercise of paint ball.

        He changes the paint ball guns into the real things.

        The real revelation is people's reactions to having lethal weapons in their hands.  Let's just say that there isn't a lot of "team work" involved.

        (The Angel Aziraphale manages to convince Crowley to undo his puckish trick, so it doesn't end up on the evening news.)

        Politics ain't bean bag.  It isn't paint ball.  It's more like Risk, where you win by convincing people to do things your way.  The first time I ever played that game in college I was a minnow among sharks.

        Primary season: All sizzle, no steak.

        by Fabian on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:17:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  soft toss. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon

        it's a game.  

      •  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finley_Peter_Dunne (0+ / 0-)

        Or perhaps you were asking stagemom what she means?

  •  your questions with my answers (12+ / 0-)

    What I want to know is that you will renounce the doctrine of preemptive war: Hillary says she does renounce this doctrine, Obama says he's against dumb wars, meaning wars we can't win.  He may be against preemptive war with that comment, but it isn't clear.  

    What I want to know is that you will get our troops out of Iraq before the end of your first term in office, without leaving permanent bases:  Hillary says she will demand a plan and start withdrawing troops within two months.  She says the goal is everyone out within one year, but that she cant guarantee it. She's wants all the civilian contractors out and those Iraqis in danger because they've supported us. She'll work to get Iraq's neighbors and Europe to help contain the bloodbath that will surely follow, but she will get us out regardless of the success of such negotiations. I expect he'd do the same, but she's further along in setting the negotiation agenda, with the diplomats on board.

    What I want to know is that you will find bin Laden, that you will take seriously the threat that al Qaeda still poses and that you will know where and how to fight them: HIllary still calls him the big threat, and Obama says if he gets credible evidence of where he is, he'll go after him even if this violates existing treaties.  The big problem here is the middle east, and what will happen there. They've both committed to working on the IP problem, but they're both fairly silent on how they'll do this. Hillary has done more to assure Israel she takes their fears seriously.  This is the big mess bush made worse that has no good solution. We need Israel to cooperate, and no one can guarantee this cooperation with our foreign policy objectives, peace throughout the middle east.  And here you can also ask about Africa, and the role of China and Russia, all at this point unanswerable.  

    What I want to know is that you will take care of the men and women who gave their all for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, that you will end the shameful lack of funding, services, and treatment these brave men and women face when they come home, and that you will ensure they get the help that they not only need, but deserve: Hillary is for returning the GI bill to it's past glory, also giving vietnam vets the same improved care as the proposed improvements for younger vets. Obama wants vets to be able to see doctors close to home. She's passed legislation to help vets. But mainly they're on the same page here.

    What I want to know is that you will unequivocally renounce the use of torture and will agree to abide by the Geneva Conventions and international treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war: Both of them unequivocally renounce the use of torture and call waterboarding torture.  On this only Bush and his cronies like torture.  She took Bill to task for suggesting the president could make it legal, she said no, it can't be legal.  

    What I want to know is that you will shut Guantanamo and every secret prison down as soon as humanly possible, and that the detainees in them will receive justice: Both call for ending this stuff. Hillary calls for removing private armies and bringing back civilians in Iraq.  She came out for no permanent bases as soon as Bush said they'd be permanent.  I can't believe that Obama isn't with her on this.  

    What I want to know is that you will end the warrantless and illegal surveillance of American citizens by our intelligence agencies: Hillary says her first priority is reversing these Bush initiatives and restoring constitutionality and protection of the law.  I'm sure Obama is with her.  

    What I want to know is that you will hold any corporation that aided government in illegally spying on American citizens accountable to the rule of law: Me too, but we'll find out soon, won't have to wait on where either of them stand here, we'll see how they vote.  

    What I want to know is that your cabinet and executive offices will not be stacked with bumbling ideologues and cronies: Both have come out strongly for professionals and experts in cabinet positions. she's going to hire hacks and put in professionals in all agencies, professionalize the government. That's her thing, she'll be hands on, making sure that each agency is being run properly, that government agencies work for the people. She also says she's laid out her agenda and she expects to be held accountable.  

    What I want to know is that you, your Vice President and every one of your executive officers will be subject to the rule of law, just like everyone else: HIllary goes further, reverse bush edicts, denounce his fluting the the law, put in new accountability legislation to prevent any future president from taking office and acting like a 'decider-king,' but she also says she'll say (and has said) exactly what she'll do and she expects to be held accountable.  

    What I want to know is that you will respect Congress as a co-equal branch of government.  Both have said so.  

    What I want to know is that you will never attempt to circumvent Congress's laws with signing statement. Both have said signing statements will be used only if congress passes a law that discriminates against citizens equal rights and is therefore unconstitutional.  It's an 'excess only' reservation.  

    What I want to know is that you appoint qualified Supreme Court justices who believe in the rule of law and in the fundamental privacy protections for all Americans under decided law: Both have called for this, Lawrence Tribe, the foremost constitutional law professor backs Obama.  Both are sick of hacks, and want smart people, and dare I say, younger people when they're better than promoting someone out of loyalty. Loyalty is out, competence and professionalism is in.  

    What I want to know is that you are going to break the stranglehold of dependence our country has on foreign oil: both claim they will. Hillary has the most (to my mind) exciting proposal, investments in energy.  The government will be like venture capitalists backing best technology rather than most profitable, and when the money is paid back, it'll be invested again.  Obama will likely follow, it's too good a plan.  

    What I want to know is that you will make rebuilding New Orleans for all of the people of New Orleans a top domestic priority, and that another debacle like this administration's response to Katrina will never happen on your watch: Both call this a big priority, both will address it by getting rid of hacks and promoting professionals. both want truth, and they'll both fire anyone who covers up truth or lies about the real state of affairs.  

    What I want to know is that you see and understand just how massively off-track our country has gone, and that you have some idea about how to right it, and the ability to do so;  Both know this one very very very well.  

    I want to know that you will be willing to tell the American people what we need to hear, not just what we want to hear:  Today Hillary called for 'shared responsibility,' it's the cornerstone of her universal insurance plan, no more selfishness me first citizens, we all get to play, we all need to pay what we can afford.  

    I want to know that you can be a leader: the one who wins will have led voters to vote for her or him.  

    I want to know that you will give us our country back: If we want the country back we'll have to stay engaged, this one is up to us.  

  •  Good questions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eleanora, mcmom

    Good questions, and deserving of an answer. The good news, for those of us still undecided between HRC and BO, is that we know for sure how the guy in the other party will answer. As for the opening topic, I think a lot of the problem is both
    the normal dynamic of a hard fought primary election (believe me, I've seen worse in my 66 years) and the new element in the fact that we've got the first serious black and woman candidates. Something, by the way, that becomes easy to exploit by trolls from the other side (I think a good number of the most rhetorically vicious and divisive attacks here and elsewhere (be it against  Hilary or Obama) do in fact come from Republican trolls...I said, vicious and divisive, not objective and honest.
    And that a goodly number of people protesting they would "never vote for Hilary" are indeed part and parcel of the Repub 40% still smarting from the fact the Clintons have beaten them at least 4 times....

    Finally, you know that the media, and the polling people, will be carefully scrutinizing how blacks intend to vote in Nov, or latinos, or black women...
    and, of course, those illusive and all important independents.

    It will be very interesting for political junkies to scrutinize the analyses/demographics of voters post-November. Hopefully to see why EITHER
    Hilary or Barack won.

  •  What I want to know is... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eleanora

    will either Obama or Clinton remove the gag order that prevents countries receiving aid from us to fight aids from giving planned parenthood advice? Currently, if they even mention abortion as a possibility, they lose all monies. It has hurt the health of women in Africa and the developing world tremendously. There are more deaths of women from botched abortion, and more babies born into starvation. Abstinence only does not work. We must allow the peoples of the world to accept aid without these strings attached.

    "The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off!" - Gloria Steinem

    by MA Liberal on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:11:05 PM PST

  •  Brava! Brava! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn, mcmom

    Had either one answered these questions, I would have been walkin' and talkin' for The One.

    HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

    by kck on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:11:58 PM PST

  •  I love it! (0+ / 0-)

    Each state has become so excited at the prospect that they matter this time.  I saw news clips of Maryland absolutely delighted.  Texas is beginning to understand that they will probably play a huge role.

    This accounts for so much of the excitement -- that your vote does make a difference this time.

    That being said, I think it's great you want substance.  We should all pound that point.  Substance can and should be balanced with inspiration.

    I think both candidates do have more substance than we give them credit for.  But substance does not neccesarily make the news cycle.

    truth, kindness, endurance, Obama '08

    by CupofTea on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM PST

  •  Excellent Diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn

    I think that many of us are here because of Howard Dean.  I am now an Obama supporter, but I wanna know the answers to your questions as well.  We all should.

    •  I don't want to know. (0+ / 0-)

      I don't want to know that these candidates would be willing to leave the troops in Iraq for up to another 5 years. I'm sorry enough to know that McJoan would be satisfied with that.

      The Senate is the last bastion of white supremacy. --Andrew Gumbel

      by Free Spirit on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:03:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  TU was nice (0+ / 0-)

    I framed this question to myself as "If what happened in Pakistan happened here, why would you trust Hillary Clinton to come back and make things right in the same way that the Bush administration trusted Benazir Bhutto to make things right? How much of this reason would have to do with Bill?"

    -4.00, -5.33 If you are what you say you are, a superstar, then have no fear

    by 4jkb4ia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM PST

  •  This is the best primary diary I've read in (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    roonie, suswa, eleanora, joanneleon, mcmom

    couple of weeks. Only problem is I sorely miss Dr. Dean and John Edwards. Thought I was over it.... I'm not.

    "Don't believe everything you think" Buddhist saying

    by hester on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:19:21 PM PST

  •  We need Dem unity not Obama unity. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    suswa, JuliaAnn, OCdem, Antifish

    There is too much unity with the gop already.

    "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush"

    by gotalife on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:20:10 PM PST

  •  This is whyI read Daily Kos. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn, joanneleon, Fabian, mcmom, CanyonWren

    Thank you, mcjoan, for asking these questions so succinctly.

  •  Good Luck Getting Straight Answers n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM PST

  •  misleading post, except as a meta-commentary (0+ / 0-)

    BOTH candidates have provided ample information to answer the bulk of these questions.

    As an Obama supporter, i have listened to enough speeches, and debates, and read his positions in books and websites, to come up with a solid answer to these policy and vision questions.

    Their's substance behind the attractive rhetoric that plays for TV, and I think mcjoan is being intentionally blind to the wealth of information that is available for her to make a decision.

    how can you post on dailykos and not be interested in researching the answers to these various questions after more than a yeah of watching them campaign?

    •  specifically (though not all q/a's were specific: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Conservative Socialist, zerone

      What I want to know is that you will renounce the doctrine of preemptive war. -- Obama: "have to end the mindset that got us into war" from the latest debate.  i'd call that a pretty strong signal.

      What I want to know is that you will get our troops out of Iraq before the end of your first term in office, without leaving permanent bases. -- Obama:  Has repeatedly said no permant bases and that he will leave by the end of his first term.  believe him or not, but he's said it.

      What I want to know is that you will find bin Laden, that you will take seriously the threat that al Qaeda still poses and that you will know where and how to fight them.  -- Obama:  has repeatedly called for increased troop presence in afghanistan and more pressure on pakistan to act.  Agree with him or not, he's said this repeatedly.

      What I want to know is that you will take care of the men and women who gave their all for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, that you will end the shameful lack of funding, services, and treatment these brave men and women face when they come home, and that you will ensure they get the help that they not only need, but deserve. -- Both candidates:  have called for increases in funding for injured vets.  I'm certain Obama has in a recent debate highlighted this issue calling as well for mental health screens for the troops coming home.

      What I want to know is that you will unequivocally renounce the use of torture and will agree to abide by the Geneva Conventions and international treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war. -- Both candidates have surely commented on this.  here's the first article on google about obama's position on this issue:  http://usliberals.about.com/...

      What I want to know is that you will shut Guantanamo and every secret prison down as soon as humanly possible, and that the detainees in them will receive justice. -- see above

      What I want to know is that you will end the warrantless and illegal surveillance of American citizens by our intelligence agencies. -- Obama:  addressed this in NH, you know the answer:  http://www.news.com/...

      What I want to know is that you will hold any corporation that aided government in illegally spying on American citizens accountable to the rule of law. obama:  is opposed to amnesty:

      http://www.thenation.com/...

      What I want to know is that your cabinet and executive offices will not be stacked with bumbling ideologues and cronies. -- Obama did address this in the last debate, but it's a vague question you must admit.

      What I want to know is that you, your Vice President and every one of your executive officers will be subject to the rule of law, just like everyone else. -- benefit of the doubt

      What I want to know is that you will respect Congress as a co-equal branch of government. -- Obama (and others') detailed answers to this:

      http://www.boston.com/...

      What I want to know is that you will never attempt to circumvent Congress's laws with signing statement. -- see above

      What I want to know is that you appoint qualified Supreme Court justices who believe in the rule of law and in the fundamental privacy protections for all Americans under decided law. -- not sure

      What I want to know is that you are going to break the stranglehold of dependence our country has on foreign oil. -- Obama references this in every stump speech.

      What I want to know is that you will make rebuilding New Orleans for all of the people of New Orleans a top domestic priority, and that another debacle like this administration's response to Katrina will never happen on your watch. -- THAT is a good question.  Edwards spoke of this more.  

      here's obama's lengthy answer:  http://www.wwltv.com/...

      What I want to know is that you see and understand just how massively off-track our country has gone, and that you have some idea about how to right it, and the ability to do so. -- this is subjective.  Obama clearly agrees with you on the problem, and i like his less-lobbyist-funded approach so solving it (plus his 12 yrs experience)

      I want to know that you will be willing to tell the American people what we need to hear, not just what we want to hear. -- see every speech by obama for this line.  and some evidence that he is willing;  see the answer to hispanic/black wage race-baiting question from the last debate.  obama took the high road, clinton took the low road in blaming wages on immigrants.  

      I want to know that you can be a leader. -- subjective.

      I want to know that you will give us our country back. -- i'd vote for the guy who has 750000 individual small-er funders. then it's "our" country.

  •  thank you, mcjoan.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn, joanneleon, mcmom

    ...you took the words right out of my feeble mind. heh...I coulda written that one.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mohandas Gandhi

    by ezdidit on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:32:06 PM PST

  •  Who's for a 50 state strategy? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KLM, suswa, joanneleon, mcmom, Renie

    Yes, these are great questions, many of which have been answered by the candidates. While we’re being nostalgic for Dean, what I want to know is which candidate will keep Dean and will keep building the party?

  •  Stop watching MSM (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eleanora

    Watch C-Span.  The candidates have answered all your questions repeatedly.  Real voters ask these questions.    MSM shills do not.

    I am neither bitter nor cynical but I do wish there was less immaturity in political thinking. -- FDR

    by Moresby on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:43:38 PM PST

  •  What I want to know (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranee, JuliaAnn, eleanora, mcmom

    is whether U.S. companies are going to be rewarded or penalized for outsourcing jobs, while they enjoy all the benefits of being a company in this country.  I want to know if we are going to use real, factual data when making decisions on the size and quality of the technical work force in this country (and other similar situations) before setting H1B visa numbers.  I want to know if there are going to be good jobs in science, technology and research that will be an incentive for kids to major in those subjects in universities.

    I want real, specific answers on free trade issues.

    I want to know if the real costs of using fossil fuels are going to be figured in the prices of goods.  

    I want to know what is owed to the corporations, lobbies and other organizations who donated large amounts of money to the candidates.  I want to know who owns our elected officials.  I want to know what deals are going down behind closed doors.

    I want to know when we are going to have real agencies and enforcement of regulations again.

    I want to know when our ports will be safer and when our products manufactured in other countries will be safer.

    I want to know whether the newly elected president will hold the Bush administration accountable, for real.

    "The walls between art and engineering exist only in our minds." --Theo Jansen

    by joanneleon on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:44:26 PM PST

  •  I want accountability for this war! (0+ / 0-)

    This is a great article. I've been saying these things too.

    I really like the candidates, but I want substance.

    We have our own values, and those values include equality and justice for everyone.

    If crimes were commited before and during this war, I want those responsible brought to justice.

    I want us to stop exporting death.

    Article III says we have a right to life. There are no clauses in it that state it only applies if you can afford it.

    I was happiest as a heathen.

    by MouseOfSuburbia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:44:41 PM PST

  •  What I want to know is (0+ / 0-)
    Whether or not you've been in a freaking COMA during this entire campaign if you still have all of these unanswered questions (most of them have been directly addressed by the candidates).

    Sigh...

  •  The bar just gets lower and lower... (0+ / 0-)

    What I want to know is that you will get our troops out of Iraq before the end of your first term in office

    Jesus...2012?!?!?!  THAT'S YOUR GOAL?!?!?

    What I remember most about the What I Want To Know speech is the example Dean gave of the Democrats caving to the Republicans before they'd even started, by asking for what they thought they could get ("please can I have some more porridge, sir?), instead of what they wanted.

    Is this what you really want???  FIVE MORE YEARS of death and destruction? Mother of God. We are so lost now.

    Or is the answer to Dean's question that your leaders in Congress ask for what they can get instead of what they want is because they really do represent you?

    The Senate is the last bastion of white supremacy. --Andrew Gumbel

    by Free Spirit on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM PST

    •  Yeah joan! (0+ / 0-)

      We need a candidate who'll click their fingers and make all the troops and equipment appear in the United States, dismantle the permanent bases and give each and every Iraqi a pony. You mush choose: Ron Paul, Nadir or Kucinich?

      •  Not buying it (0+ / 0-)

        Nor do many Democrats in Congress, who have proposed much shorter time frames. Obama has committed to having all of our combat brigades out by the end of next year.

        As for the permanent bases, no need to dismantle them.  Just leave them there.

        I will not buy into your "can't do" attitude.  I understand that there are those who lack the will and/or the competence to tackle anything more challenging than buttering their morning toast, and that they naturally resent it when others prove capable of doing far more. Thus, they are deeply vested in the idea that others can't or won't do what they themselves can't or won't do, and are therefore quick to cry "We can't!" But many can, and often do.

        The Senate is the last bastion of white supremacy. --Andrew Gumbel

        by Free Spirit on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:24:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wishing something were so doesn't make it so. (0+ / 0-)

          Positive thinking will make you feel better about yourself, so you can accomplish more, but it doesn't change reality. Ever heard the prayer to be granted "the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference"? That's not a "can't do attitude". It's just good sense. Of course one can differ on what falls into what category, but that's where wisdom, facts and reason come in.

          Are you suggesting we just abandon some quantity of tanks, weapons, armored facilities, etc to speed up the exit? Do you think that will help the stability of the country?

          I know the GOP and their DINO allies will use these factors as excuses to drag things out, and we need to be skeptical, but that doesn't make them any less real.

          There's a good summary of the various views here:
          http://www.motherjones.com/...

          I'd be interested to know which Dems you're thinking of, and of any other assessments, especially by ex-military.

  •  Dear McJoan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizendave

    I realish your posts and read most of them.

    I challenge your primise, that both candidates are progressive, irrespective of what us commentors say.

    Exactly how is Mrs. Clinton progressive?

    Nowhere have I seen her stand up for putting an end to voter supression. Which has taken many forms since 2000 and probably before that time too.

    Mrs. Clinton is a leader in the DLC. The DLC isan extra insiders club, that has run its legs off blocking progressive reforms and instead has made every effort to pander to the right and incorporate the corporate agenda inside the Democratic party.

    I take it that her use of her husband as a spokesman and no statments disclaiming his actions as President, allows us to take it that his policies are very similar to her own.

    President Clinton was the 1st to use the vile Blackwater in Bosnia, as well as depleted uranium munitions, which is a clear violation of treaties we have against their use.

    It was President Clinton that talked us citizens into Globalism, a clear whip for corporate hands to plunder multiple nations and enrich a very few.

    Futhermore he continued the American practice of using the CIA to oppress central and south American nations. He sent his bud, James Carville, to close the deal in Bolivia which privatized their water.

    She openly spoke in this last debate about her bi-partisan efforts (with Senator Frist) to set up a national database of all Americans health records, a serious problem that only takes a little thought to see the missuse of it making whole swaths of Americans vaunerable to healthcare industries greed.

    I beg you to reconsider calling her a progressive/liberal. It is in only a few issues that she even comes close to making that grade.  

  •  Whatever in the world (0+ / 0-)

    allows you to maintain the fantasy that either of the candidates you allude to will be

    ... sitting down behind that big desk in the Oval Office on January 20, 2009.

    We are now down to fighting out the the last few bits of identity politics differences among progressives, but we left mainstream voters behind when we sent John Edwards packing. You can argue about the finer points of these two candidates all you want, but John McCain will now be sitting behind that desk! That is settled.

    (-,-) "Just because an idea appeals to a lot of people doesn't mean it's wrong. But that's a good working theory. " John Tierney

    by phaktor on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:51:38 PM PST

  •  Excellent, mcjoan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, CanyonWren

    I'm with you. The state of our nation and the state of the world demand answers to specific questions, not feel-good generalities. I agree 100%. I'm somewhat despondent because -- even if a Democrat wins the general and I should be elated -- I'm not really sure what it will mean. That's not good.

    "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

    by JuliaAnn on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:54:43 PM PST

    •  I don't think you will (0+ / 0-)

      have to worry about what it would mean if Democrat won the general, because that is not going to happen now. If we were concerned about the general, we should have thought about John Edwards. But, as usual, we are very shortsighted.

      (-,-) "Just because an idea appeals to a lot of people doesn't mean it's wrong. But that's a good working theory. " John Tierney

      by phaktor on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:59:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Social Security: (0+ / 0-)

    I want to know if you'll "save" it by cutting benefits.

    Do you have a child? Will you send her to the war?... anon

    by andreww on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:59:38 PM PST

  •  Romney and Coulter. (0+ / 0-)

    Mitt "I'll flip flop on any issue" Romney is a GONER, together with Anne Coulter!

    http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/...

  •  Mrs. Clinton's hubby takes $31,000,000. (0+ / 0-)

    Pay-off for fronting/shilling the Berserkistan uranium deal.

    How's about he gets his political balls kicked fer it ???

    Teddy just drove off a bridge. An accident.

    Slick done been going around the world selling out.

    With $100,000,000 on the come.

    So why the eff' is this acceptable ???????

    No bullsh*t, folks. Why the hell is this slime any drop more acceptable than what the GOPpers have been doing ????

    Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

    by vets74 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:11:55 PM PST

  •  I find it offensive that... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eumaies, Renie, citizendave

    a politician who voted (unapologetically) for the invasion of Iraq, which was and is a criminal act, has a good chance of being elected as our next president.  This country is filled with idiots.

    The People shouldn't fear the government, the government should fear the People. V

    by rubine on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:20:03 PM PST

  •  Questions from mcjoan (0+ / 0-)

    Fantastic questions mcjoan. I have told everyone I know that I will cheerfully vote for Edwaqrds, Obama, or Clinton. I will vote for the parties nominee in November whoever it is and one thing I just can't understand are those who say if it is this candidate or that candidate I'll just stay home. I also don't understand all of this "I'll reach across the aisle" crap. That's right I said "crap" and I was being polite about it. I don't want a candidate who will reach across the aisle. The idiot Republicans on the other side are the one's who are responsible for the mess we are in and the last thing I want is to cooperate with any of them. (look what trying to work with them has cost Clinton on Iraq). These neocon idiots have destroyed Americas reputation around the world and have killed off thousand's of our boys and girls in a war that is accomplishing nothing.

    Seriously what is wrong with all of you people who think that Obama stating that  he will reach across the aisle is such a wonderful thing? George Bush, Cheney and the rest of the lockstep voting non thinking Republicans were wrong yesterday, they are wrong today, and they will be wrong tomorrow. Democrats need to grow some spine and quit worrying about what a bunch of right wing blovators will lie about next. Frankly, I think it's about time we stood for something and all of this talk about electability and we need to be in power to effect change is a load of nonsense. Get out there and tell America what you stand for and if that prevents you getting elected then do your best to work at changing people's hearts and minds. Really, if we can't get elected being honest about what the Democratic party stands for then we clearly aren't doing a good enough job is getting our message out.

    And I agree with AnderwMC that the kinds of questions mcjoan has asked and their answers would do for a party platform quite nicely.

  •  Clinton, Obama should just run together (0+ / 0-)

    mcjoan, tremendous writing, thank you.

    I'm watching a lot of my Democratic tribe join Ron Paul's ship.  I'm seeing that Americans are hungry for change,sadly, they don't recognize the individual's power to immediately enact said change.

    I want to see the Democrats in office-for many reasons-the most superficial being that since my birth in 74, Dems have held office only 12 years.

    But, since I'm HUNGRY for change and working hard out here to create paradigm shifts, I am making a modest proposal. Maybe its been mentioned before, probably cuz I'm not a genius here.

    I propose that Obama and Clinton lock down that Democratic ticket by running together- play a game of rock,paper, scissors to decide who plays Big Chief and then proceed to make these changes they both talk about. WHile making history doing it!

    I would rather us make history by creating Peace than to become history in its absence.

    by Alix Bryan on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:26:16 PM PST

  •  Amen! (0+ / 0-)

    And if it's not too much trouble, could they do it before Tuesday so I know who to vote for? I'm still considering writing in Russ Feingold.

  •  'tis the nature of politics (0+ / 0-)

    to demand that we be supple, lithe, that we make stuff up as we go along, that we adapt.  W was none of these things and look at the mess we're in.  Yes, both our splendid candidates know what a tough job they have ahead of them, Hillary more so than Barack, but only because she's been to a few more rodeos.

    We are lucky to have these people.  Let's make it a point to be worthy of them.  After all, one of them is going to be POTUS.

    Does the star spangled banner still wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

    by blue guitar on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:03:47 PM PST

  •  Kucinich, Paul (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    indyWillie, citizendave

    But remember, Dennis and Ron Paul were nut jobs with no business running (according to kos), even though they were the only two on either side to bring such issues up.

  •  Great work, Joan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom

    You're more polite than I, but I've lost patience with nicety to our politicians.

  •  What I Want to Know (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    indyWillie, guinsu, citizendave

    What I want to know is when the folks who read these blogs will finally wake up and understand that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will give satisfactory answers to any of these questions.  Satisfactory answers will come only when people walk away from a corrupt and dysfunctional two party system.

  •  Thanks Joan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom, guinsu

    It's good to see a worthwhile discussion from the viewpoint of a Progressive agenda as opposed to the viewpoint of a candidate's agenda.

    I wish my border collie could run for President.

    by svotaw1992 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:45:37 PM PST

  •  Excellent. If you are reading, Dem. candidates, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom

    please answer these crucial questions.

  •  Best diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom

    in months. Thanks!

    I would add:

    I want to know that your administration will commit to treating all individuals who are seeking entrance into the United States by legal means with dignity, courtesy, and respect; that your government will never use immigration policy as a means of scapegoating, stereotyping races and religions, or disseminating hatred; that undocumented immigrants currently in the United States will be offered a safe path to legal residence, in accordance with international and domestic laws and with the best multicultural, tolerant, and humane traditions of the United States; that whatever reasonable limits our society decides to impose on immigration will be enforced without torturing, drugging, or otherwise humiliating or degrading anyone seeking entrance into the United States.

    Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; truth isn't (Mark Twain).

    by leftistwithoutapology on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:13:30 PM PST

  •  I just found (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oklib77

    That Obama has a "My policy" page on his website where anyone can provide policy input.  I found it because his campaign is soliciting input on his Economy and Immigration policy positions and action plans on his blog today.  At any rate, I submitted input on both of those, as well as the suggestion that he make this page easy to find.  It's not at all clear how a person would navigate to it through the menu structure on his site.  I suggested he put it in the Action menu as "Share your ideas"

    http://my.barackobama.com/...

    I was able to put in my 2 cents that he might want to honor his pledge to John Edwards by acknowledging the 2 America's and including some key Edward's proposals.

    I really liked that 1) he's asking for his constituent's input on updating the policy statements; 2) He makes it easy to provide the input (once he helped me find the page), and 3) The policies are not just stagnent documents on the shelf, but he's improving them based on input.  

    Does Hillary have a similar means of providing policy suggestions?  If she does, she seems to be doing a good job hiding it on her site too.

    I'll be interested to see if Obama's team fixes the menu options, so folks can find the page.  I'll feel listened to.

    The reason I'm including this comment here, is that if you feel that Obama is not addressing one or more of Mcjoan's excellent questions's, this is one more vehicle to challenge the candidate to update his published positions - for later accountability and such.

    Fired up! Ready to go!

    by susanWAstate on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:39:18 PM PST

  •  Thank You! You spoke my (0+ / 0-)

    mind so much better than I could.

  •  Sing it, sister (0+ / 0-)

    I, too, want to know.

    If I can't dance, it's not my revolution. -- Emma Goldman.

    by DoctorScience on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:07:39 PM PST

  •  phenomenal (0+ / 0-)

    but we still have to vote for someone, right?

    i need to worry less about my vote & more about what i'm doing in my community.  

    beneath the paving stones, the beach!

    by oklib77 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:31:01 PM PST

  •  There is one big question I want an answer to (0+ / 0-)

    I want to know if our candidates will pledge to do everything in their power to hold the war criminals and crooks in this administration accountable and promise that no pardons will be given.

    Until we do that America will never be the respectable country it should be in the eyes of many here in our own country as well as in the world.

    Peace
    :)

    I am beginning to feel like a man with no country. That country died when we failed to stand up for what is right.

    by eaglecries on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:31:21 PM PST

  •  Pushback starts Wednesday (0+ / 0-)

    on whomever is the nominee.

    Yes, I fear the poses both candidates give us.

  •  This is all great stuff. But if you really want (0+ / 0-)

    your country back, you have to first get rid of K Street because it is K Street and not your elected representatives that actually run this country.

    Getting rid of K Street requires an amendment to the Constitution.

    An amendment by the way which will never be proposed by a Kongress already in thrall to K Street.

    So what is the solution ?

    Simple,  and it is already in the Constitution. It is called Article V and it lets the people themselves propose amendments.

    Go here to learn more about this simple process that will give you control back over your own government.

    http://www.foavc.org/

  •  What I want to know (0+ / 0-)

    is will you arrest the criminials currently in office and send them to Helsinki to answer for the crimes they've committed against humanity!

    All oppressed people are authorized, whenever they can, to rise and break their fetters. Henry Clay, March 24, 1818, to the House of Represenatives

    by WASanford on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:34:06 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site