The Race is just beginning
 

THE race is over: long live the race. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have reason to feel sanguine as they contemplate the long contest ahead against John McCain and the Republican Party. The current Republican president’s approval ratings are in the dumps, in part because the economy is weak—the unemployment rate rose to 5.5% last week—and in part because the war in Iraq, despite becoming less bloody recently, remains unpopular. Many voters say the country is on the wrong track.

And the Democrats have, at last, nominated a man, Mr Obama, who sends crowds into paroxysms of joy. In contrast his opponent, Mr McCain, appears lacklustre at the moment: he has taken limited advantage of the prolonged division among the Democrats.

Yet, as the next stage of the battle for the presidency begins, it is far from clear that Mr Obama will find the coming months easy,

{continues}
https://www.economist.com/world/na/d...ry_id=11524787

And does anyone think this has real legs? Could a run for the White House by Bob Barr steal votes away from McCain or Obama for that matter and cause one or the other to lose. I think Barr may be more conservative than McCain!

Should be an interesting role that is played on the national stage. I wonder if they will let him in on any of the debates. Highly unlikely.

https://www.economist.com/world/na/d...ry_id=11414375

Let's follow the money!

http://www.followthemoney.org/

Hasn't Obama raised, like, more money than anybody, ever?

Well I know he had raised a whole lot more than Hillary. It should be on here: http://www.opensecrets.org/

I am going to be very happy to find out how well the NAACP runs the country. This is the rubber meeting the road. He's going to win hands down, and I am not sorry because I want the patriot act dissolved. I want gitmo closed etc. Hopefully he will be able to do any of that. Maybe I will vote. He's not an idiot and I will be happy to see anyone in office that is not the idiot I have seen for the past years. It's really getting me down. I quit all political activities after his inauguration again. I cried at 8:30 in the morning when I had stayed up waiting for the announcement and woke up to find he was president again, a terrible fear I had, realized. I rarely cry. I then created a large inauguration protest, then I quit everything. I lost all hope. Maybe I am looking for hope again, and maybe I am going to be disappointed. I am happy with anything that does not illustrate that level of complete incompetence and general paranoia, again.

"Keep Hope Alive!" jessie jackson.

Still, that was nothing compared to the morning we awoke to find Robert Kennedy dead. I cannot properly portray the enormity of that loss (first John, then Robert) once we knew all hope was lost. What did we get as a result? Nixon.

Day after Nixon was elected, walking through a large open atrium, I remember wondering if things could get worse. Still that was not as diminishing as the day Robert died. After Robert’s death, well, no losses could be worse. And then things got worse. Just not all at once in one day. Nothing since compares to that stunning loss; as if we had nothing more to lose. Even 11 September never became so oppressive. Even 11 September never created so large a one time feeling of loss. After Robert’s death, it only got worse. More proof that you could not trust anyone over 30. It got worse. But no one day shock has been as tragic as the day Robert died. Yes, the day John died was even more tramatic. But we never had another event as tramatic. 11 September comes close. 11 September never resulted that same feeling of loss; only in a feeling that the nation had something to resolve.

Guess you didn't have any family there, then.

That's odd, given your narrative on everything else, I actually would have thought you were in favor of RFK's assassination, just as you were in favor of the assassination of Lebanese politicians recently.

It was arguably the first "blowback" result of US policy in the middle east. Arguably the "first shot" of which 9/11 is a continuing series of events in the same long struggle.

(Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian, angry at RFK for his support of Israel during the Six Days War.)

I seriously doubt that RFK was the only U.S. politician that supported Israel during the Six Day War, so why would he have been the only one singled out for assassination by Moslems?

What about Nixon, who sent military aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur War in 1973? For all of his other faults, I would venture that Nixon is the only U.S. president to ever fully support Israel.

They didn't get him.

I am not sure that you could go back that far. Certainly a case can be made that since the late 80's an organized effort by islamic jiahdists to kill anyone not muslim has been well documented.

That posted reasoning is flawed. RFKs death was not about blanket Israeli support. Sirhan Sirhan was angered because RFK endorsed a fighter plane sale to Israel - not about a war. It could have been most anything. Underlying anger and conflict was increasing everywhere to include Vietnam, the sexual revolution, rock and roll, leaders so divorced from the people that 'you can't trust anyone over 30', an oppressive cold war that had no apparent resolution and sudden revelation that even bomb shelters were useless, civil rights and overt racism, Israel’s overt attack on the USS Liberty with 50+ dead and no America response, etc. Divisions in America were growing so deep that even every 'most popular' music (Beatles, Rolling Stones, Elvis) were never nominated for Grammys. Even music represented a threat to existing 'powers that be' – further demonstrating the growing rifts.

RFK was not killed over a Middle East war. That fighter sale was simply an excuse. RFK was killed because deep seated divisions were surfacing all over America in both little conflicts and in violence, arson, and bombings. The Edmund Pettus Bridge and George Wallace were just more examples. Were the Beatles dangerous? Yes according to our parents. RFK was too much at the center of most every growing rift.

Sirhan Sirhan only did what was becoming common especially in 1968. Violence was necessary to promote change - in minds of so many. We would even burn down our own cities just to promote change? It makes no sense today. In the 60s, it made perfectly good sense to so many that in Chicago, "The whole world is watching". Even overt police violence was increasing. Change represented by RFK became a perfect target for any angry person for or against change - from segregationists, hawks, or even the SDS or SLA. RFK's death summarized a serious problem in the entire fabric of America which is why it is called the tumultuous 60s.

Ohio National Guard marched on Kent State and randomly shot students (who were not even demonstrating) with live ammunition because violence had become acceptable. The same reasons that killed RFK also refused to investigate a Kent State massacre. Kent State students were even refused service in restaurants and gas stations. RFK was simply a most egregious example of a nation slowly going to war with itself. It was not about the Middle East. Sirhan’s gripe was rarely discussed. Obvious among all then were the growing divisions throughout America that included the two 'super faults' – Vietnam and racism. RFKs death really was about those growing divisions, anger, and disenchantment that would only get worse with Nixon.

RFK was shot by someone under 30.

Which I figure as evidence you're a toe-tag Democrat. Personally, I've never been a toe-tag anything.

Get a load of this guy: he wants to be accepted as a thoughtful, knowledgeable man, yet he remains incapable of spelling -- or of detecting a spelling error as he types. It's enough to make a man mutter yet again about thalidomide cases.

Which resolve you've done nothing to further, as your last couple thousand postings show, and your failure to pursue or even desire our winning the war shows even more clearly. Comes of unreasonable prejudice against Republicans, something else I do not suffer from. You're not capable of realizing unreasonable prejudices only make you into an idiot.

So spelling errors indicate someone is not thoughtful, or knowledgeable? Sorry, UG, I find that utterly absurd. Don't get me wrong, I rarely agree with tw, and I find his manner of arguing unpleasant for the most part, but correct spelling is not indicative of anything other than an ability to spell....and incorrect spelling is not indicative of anything wider than an inability to spell. I know some very clever, very well-educated and very thoughtful individuals who find spelling very difficult.

My brother, for example, is a very clever man. He's highly educated and I would describe him as a deep thinker. He also reads a great deal (more than me). Spelling, however, is something he's always had difficulty with: he spells phonetically and always has. There are plenty of people in the world who are not brilliant at spelling, but who are intelligent, educated and thoughtful.

This: is beneath you Urbane Guerilla. I am appalled. Not only have you decided to level insults at people because of their spelling mistakes, but you have also insulted the many people whose bodies were deformed by thalidomide. Bodies deformed.....not minds. Thalidomide does not equate to stupidity.

DanaC, perhaps you are unaware that I've likened tw trying to do politics to a thalidomide case playing the bagpipes -- that there is that in his developmental history that precludes his being worth listening to.

That he can't spell nor repair his spelling illustrates the low quality of his thinking in yet another way -- the man is slapdash, inattentive, and altogether systemically careless in speech and thought. That he is visibly a Communist sympathizer and a violent (and repulsive) antipatriot is the essence of tw's wrongness.

All in all, he's not someone you should defend. It will force you into, well, crazy talk. Is that something you have to do? If so, why, for crying in a bucket?

Why thank you.

UG you've called our country fascist.
And Dana and me pro-genocide.
You're hardly someone whose opinion we should be listening to either.

You're correct, I was not aware of that.


See, now there's a fair bit of that which could be applied to me also...

Sundae, good point chika.

I found that rather interesting considering all the publicity McCain doesn't get and all that Obama does. I feel the amount of coverage is so skewed that its hard for me to believe that large a movement in the polls over such a short time frame.

Unless (conspiracy theory) the media wants them to be rather close together right now so that later as they report Obama's lead growing it will seem like a momentum surge everyone wants to be a part of.

I have wondered that as well. I hate conspiracy theorists and those who love to populate the threads with them. But it does make one wonder.

i'm just waiting for the usual links showing obama and mccain are related and then right before the election the links to secret societies will come to light.

As you wish...

Will secret clubs pick next prez?

CFR, Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission insiders usually run for, win White House, shows new book
Posted: November 01, 2007
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – It started in 1952.

Nearly every person elected as president of the United States since then – and nearly every opponent – has belonged to a secretive, globalism-oriented organization known as the Council on Foreign Relations.

Some presidents and their challengers have belonged to additional clubs of internationalists – the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. Running mates, too, more often than not have had ties to the groups.

That the groups exert enormous influence on public policy is indisputable. What is disputed is whether such groups are, as adherents and members argue, just discussion forums for movers and shakers, or, as critics have long alleged, secret societies shaping a new world order from behind the scenes. On that last point at least, no one could challenge the critics: All these groups operate in considerable secrecy, away from the scrutiny of the American public.


Regardless of how one characterizes them, the fact that virtually all presidents belong to the same secret clubs prompts the author of a new book to wonder if the 2008 election will also be a contest between globalist insiders. Judging from the list of frontrunners of each party, Daniel Estulin, author of "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group," may be on to something.

According to a variety of sources, the following presidential candidates are either members of one of the groups or have strong ties: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.

Mike Huckabee, though not a member, spoke to the CFR in September. Since then, his political star has risen to the point that he has become a top-tier candidate.

So often throughout recent history it has been the case.

Ever since Democrat Adlai Stevenson challenged Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, the odds have significantly favored those with membership in the elite groups.

In 1960, both John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon were members.

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson was not a member. Neither was his opponent, Barry Goldwater. But Johnson had already staffed his administration with plenty of insiders.

In 1968, it was Nixon versus club member Hubert H. Humphrey.

In 1972, it was Nixon again against Democratic Party CFR member George McGovern.

In 1976, it was CFR Republican Gerald Ford losing to CFR Democrat Jimmy Carter.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was not a member, but his running mate, George H.W. Bush, was. So were both of his opponents – Carter and independent John Anderson. Assuming office, however, Reagan quickly named 313 CFR members to his team.

In 1984, another CFR member, Walter Mondale, was nominated by the Democratic Party to challenge Reagan.

In 1988, CFR member Bush took on CFR member Michael Dukakis.

In 1992, Bush was challenged by an obscure governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who won the "trifecta" by being a member of the CFR, Trlateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. He was also a Rhodes scholar – another favored credential of the worldwide elite.

In 1996, Clinton was challenged by CFR member Bob Dole.

In 2000, CFR member Al Gore ran against non-member George W. Bush, but his running mate, Dick Cheney, was.

In 2004, Bush was challenged by CFR member John Kerry.

"David Rockefeller, whose family financed the CFR, is a common denominator among these parallel groups," writes Estulin. "Not only is he the CFR chairman emeritus, but he also continues to provide financial and personal support to the TC, CFR and Bilderberg Group."

What is the agenda behind these groups, which Estulin says are comprised of "self-interested elitists protecting their wealth and the investments of multinational banks and corporations in the growing world economy at the expense of developing nations and Third World countries"?

"The policies they develop," he writes, "benefit them as well as move us towards a one-world government."

Those questioning Estulin's conclusion as mere speculation need only recall organizational financer David Rockefeller's own words as recorded in his "Memoirs."

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will," he wrote. "If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

With regard to insider roles in recent U.S. presidential races, two of the most interesting were 1976 and 1992.

"In the spring of 1972, a high-profile group of men gathered for dinner with W. Averell Harriman, the grand old man of the Democratic Party, a Bilderberger and a member of the CFR," writes Estulin. "Also present were Milton Katz, a CFR member and director of international studies at Harvard, Robert Bowie, who would later become deputy director of the CIA, George Franklin, David Rockefeller's coordinator for the Trilateral Commission, and Gerald Smith, U.S. ambassador-at-large for non-proliferation matters. The focus of their discussion was the not-too-distant 1976 presidential elections. Harriman suggested that if the Democrats wanted to recapture the White House, "we had better get off our high horses and look at some of those southern governors." Several names cropped up. Among them were Ruben Askew, governor of Florida, and Terry Sanford, former governor of North Carolina and, at the time, president of Duke University."

Katz reportedly informed David Rockefeller of the viability of Jimmy Carter, then governor of Georgia. According to the author, he could be sold politically to the American people. At a dinner in London, recorded by the London Times, Rockefeller got acquainted with Carter and became convinced he could become the next U.S. president. Carter was invited to join the Trilateral Commission and quickly accepted.

Later, U.S. News and World Report would have this to say about the Carter administration: "The Trilateralists have taken charge of foreign policy-making in the Carter administration, and already the immense power they wield is sparking some controversy. Active or former members of the Trilateral Commission now head every key agency involved in mapping U.S. strategy for dealing with the rest of the world."

In 1992, Estulin concludes Bill Clinton was similarly "anointed" for the presidency at the 1991 Bilderberg Conference in Baden-Baden. Following the meeting, Clinton immediately took a trip to Russia to meet with Soviet Interior Minister Vadim Balatin, then serving Mikhail Gorbachev. Later, when Boris Yeltsin won the presidential election, Bakatin became the new chief of the KGB.

The meeting went unnoticed in most of the press, with the exception of the Arkansas Democrat, whose headline told the story: "Clinton has powerful buddy in U.S.S.R – New head of KGB."

:lol2: that's some funny shit. And you think Michelle Malkin is harpy?!?! Let me get you this:
http://www.iamtrex.com/wp-content/up...n-foil-cat.jpg