I have to share this with y'all. I was reading through the comments regarding the Kucinich video and this one struck me as profoundly disturbing:

As for Kucinich, he is a false prophet, a demon, a minion of the fallen angel who is the ruler of hell. How else would it explain the ease with wich he gains followers from those who are weak in faith and fear the final judgment.

If you are strong of faith and pure of heart you should instead EMBRACE the coming of Judgment Day as a time when we can finally meet our savior in heaven and finally fulfill his promise to us. Only the sinners and non believers should quiver in fear of this day.

These are exactly the kind of people who believe in Kucinich and vote him back into congress. If he doesn't get a 7th term there would be no coincidence. His last term would have been his 6th (part of the number of the beast.) I wouldn't be shocked to find out he made a pact with satan to stay in a high paying job where he does nothing. Think about it for a moment... he also gained a beautiful wife after a short period of dating even though his own looks leave much to be desired.

He even looks like a little demon with those large pointy ears. Maybe his looks are a result of his satanic pact. Maybe he is growing to look more and more like the evil entity that has already consumed his soul. I'm praying for the 10th district. I pray they regain thier faith in God and exorcise this demonic entity from power.

Wow...

• • • Screwed up the HTML on the previous post. The entire four paragraphs were meant to be italicized. the "Wow" was my comment at the end. Sorry for the error. My monicker is not as sarcastic as I'd like sometimes.

Look! Up in the Utah sky! Is that a bird? Is it a plane?

It's ULTRA-LIBERAL!!

I like the sound of that.

America’s fastest-growing game sensation is “What Obama Really Meant.”

Here’s how W.O.R.M. is played…

http://tinyurl.com/3cqk6g

The only thing missing from the Hillary endorsement is the by-line: "This is Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message."

To be fair, they emphasize the one thing that makes her such an attractive candidate, to me and many others: she is an intellectual powerhouse, the steely policy prose to Obama's so-called 'poetry'...but I think they are laboring under a delusion about her character, the kind of political record she has, the kind of politically convenient votes she's made in the past, her willingness to acquiese on big and little things, and buckle under corporate and political pressure. (Edwards is right on this--to quote a talking point I myself like--you cannot change health care by sitting down with drug and insurance companies and politely asking them to give their privileges away).

The Times article mostly just trots out all the same, cliched, tiresome talking points and chicanery:'experience' (um, she was first lady and has only been a senator 4 years longer than Obama), ready from 'day-one' (or 'immediately'; cf 'experience' argument), she is 'more concrete' than Obama (this, too, is questionable; Obama can be eloquent and concrete by turns; Hillary consistently 'swift-boats' him by turning an undeniable advantage into some kind of failing, and deflecting attention in the process away from her own shortcomings)

OMGZ the "newspaper of record" for the establishment chose the two candidates most acquainted with the establishment? Shocking.

I have a question for Norm or any other John Edwards supporter here (and I halfway include myself in that category). What do you think of Feingold's criticism of him? He says he's simply playing politics and decided to go left with his campaign in order to win this time.

I don't delude myself into thinking that politicians do most of what they do out of personal conviction, but I do generally think they are faithful to the people that put them in office. Feingold doesn't seem to think so, and he's one of the most progressive senators we have. Link to Huffpo article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25/feingold-rips-edwards-agan83225.html

I have a question for Norm

I saw the Feingold comments earlier, in fact I linked to the article where he made them and it did give me pause. However, there are no perfect candidates and I believe, notwithstanding some mild reservations Edwards is the best bet. I don't think either Barack or Hillary will stand up for the poor in the way John says he will. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I have a question for Norm or any other John Edwards supporter here (and I halfway include myself in that category). What do you think of Feingold's criticism of him? He says he's simply playing politics and decided to go left with his campaign in order to win this time.

In my opinion, Feingold is one of the best people in the Senate - maybe the best - so I take his criticism seriously. The thing is, Edwards has more-or-less acknowledged that he is a latecomer on some of his positions and I suspect that, in more diplomatic terms, he would accept Feingold's assessment too. As I see it, other than Kucinich, Edwards is the only person saying what I want to hear on Iraq (with Biden gone), on health care (to some extent), on poverty. Clinton seems to be all aboard the imperialism express, had to be dragged by Edwards into putting out any health care plan, and neither she nor Obama much acknowledge the corrosive effect of corporate power on our democracy.

Obama doesn't say much of anything, really. Unity sounds wonderful, but the best thing for the Republican party right now would be a landslide whipping - utter electoral humiliation (and I mean this seriously). That is the only hope we have that the theocrats and the neocons will be stomped into submission. A GOP that really stood for limited government would be a party worth compromising with.

So yeah, Edwards is late to Feingold's party, but it isn't clear to me that the other two are ever really going to show up.