And it is the wind of change. The Republican Party is in shambles. They have proven themselves unable to govern, despite their superior claims of leadership in foreign policy and handling of the economy. They have proven their words to be nothing but hot air. Their obvious dislike for government made it impossible for them to govern effectively. They have forfeited their rights as a legitimate political Party.

On the other hand, the Democrats will most likely reap the benefits of the Republican's downfall. Barack Obama will most likely be the first black President of the United States. Democrats will probably increase their margins in both the House and the Senate. Thank you George W Bush!

However, the winds of change are in the Democratic Party also. By default, they win the right to govern in the next election. But it is a temporary position for the Party. Democratic supporters are not happy with the present Democratic Party either. The Party is only getting a temporary reprieve from the voters.

If they do not change, their heads will be on the political chopping block also. Democrats are not happy with the leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They are very discouraged with their failure to stand up for the American people. Their patience has run out. They want change.

If they do not change, they will find themselves wandering in the wilderness by the next election. The depressed and disenchanted Democrats will be looking for another alternative. This is the last chance for this Democratic Party. If there are no results, and soon, there will be a Third Party movement. The base of that movement will be the present liberal and progressive base of the Democratic Party. Their well of support has run dry. Take heed.

Banks are going under to the tune of a possible $5 trillion dollars and there is almost complete silence from our Congress and Senate. In the end, it may ONLY cost the taxpayers a trillion dollars. That isn't much money if you say it real fast.

But, we have no choice. They are "too big to fail". What the hell does that mean? "Too big to fail?" That is the first fallacious argument that we need to dispense with. No one is too big to fail.

But, we will go into a severe economic decline if we don't bail them out? Oh, really! What kind of decline will the citizens of this country go into with another $trillion dollars out of their pockets? That will have no impact on Americans or the economy?

But the brain-dead Congress says nothing. They are on vacation or it is nappy time for them? How can there be a trillion dollars requested and not even as much as a murmur from those that are representing us? No questions? The barn door is open and the horses are gone and there is nobody home...

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Spoken by FDR in the midst of the Great Depression. It was a time when people were desperate and depressed. They had no jobs. They had no homes. They had no food. Many became hobos and hopped trains to get out of their misery and move to a better place.

We are in another period of "fear". But this time, there is no FDR to encourage us not to fear. When and if the Democrats take the White House next January, they will not change the fear factor created by these sick and cowardly paranoiacs within the Republican Party and the present White House. We hope it will all change but it will not. The Republicans will continue to control the agenda with their campaign of fear and terrorism.

They will determine what is spent on the Defense budget. They will determine the parameters to define our "enemies". They will determine what is spent on social needs. Because the Democrats will not disagree with the agenda of right-wing neo-cons and we will maintain the status quo, to a large degree, within our foreign policy.

We would like to think that everything will change for the better and someone will stand up and say, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself", but it is not going to happen. The fear has over-ridden everything, including our laws and Constitution and any semblace of common sense that may have been left after 9/11.

I hate to burst your bubble of optimism. But there are not going to be any great changes from what we are now experiencing. The threats will continue to be blown out of proportion and the Republicans will continue to promote their paranoia, as if that alone will make us more safe? And the Democrats, as magnified by their FISA vote yesterday, will continue to shrivel before their fear-mongering.

I was hoping that there would be investigations and the truth be found. However, that is unlikely to happen. I was hoping for great changes in our domestic and foreign policies. I have doubts that anything will change with either. The vote yesterday made me very pessimistic about the future. Because I do not see the capacity for greatness that we will need to overcome this scourge that has
overwhelmed our nation and our Congress.

But he believed that the "left" were sophisticated enough to understand his strategy without explanation. Well, the "left" is no more sophisticated than the rest of America. They don't see nuance or strategy or tactics - they see in black and white - like the rest of America. They don't see the move to the middle as a strategy to win an election, they see it as a mirror to the soul of Barack Obama and the permanent position that he will also govern with. They don't see it as a political "strategy".

For better or worse, Barack Obama has decided that he will shut off the attacks on his patriotism, on the issue of guns, on the death penalty, on national security, and even on abortion, by playing to the middle. This is terribly disturbing to the "sophisticated" left. Why couldn't he simply have refused to put on the lapel pin? Why couldn't he simply say that we have to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals? Why couldn't he simply say that he opposes the death penalty? And why did he have to take a position on late-term abortions??

Perhaps he saw a weakness in the Republican Party this year that could be exploited? He is smart enough to know the usual suspect issues that has been used against every Democrat for the last 30 years. Thus far, it has worked from a purely political standpoint. Obama has successfully answered all the questions about his patriotism and his religion and the Republicans and John McCain are left with nothing except to attack him from a personal level. He's a "flip-flopper". He is "untrustworthy". He's a "typical politician". Etc...etc...

But he expected too much from his supporters on the left. He expected them to understand the necessity to go to the middle, in order to defeat the Republican machine. So far, the "sophisticated" and knowledgeable "left" have not accepted his tactics. Under pressure, they are no different than the rest of America. They look at issues in basic black and white.

We are at a time in history where we do not have a lot of choices when it comes to choosing presidential candidates. Much of it is our own doing. We are stuck with two choices: John McCain or Barack Obama. There are no other choices in this election for serious voters.

It is no secret that the left is peed off with some of Barack's recent policy decisions. But, realistically, there is not much we can do about unless we want John McCain in the White House in January. We are stuck, for better or worse, with what we have - and I doubt that it could get much worse than John McCain or George W Bush? We were not able to get John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich as our nominee, which probably shows the influence of the left within our own Party?

Therefore, we have no choice but to let Barack run his campaign the way he thinks is best. We don't have to agree with him. Who knows? Maybe he will win a large proportion of the religious-right vote this time around? After all, they are not real crazy about John McCain. Maybe he will win a lot of the "independent" voters with his stance on FISA, 2nd Amendment, etc? We don't like it but it is his to win or lose. Obviously, we don't have the power to do anything about it. But we may still determine the agenda once he is in the White House.

For too long, we have been focused on the wrong target by focusing on the race for the White House. Instead, we should be focusing on those that are running for Congress and the Senate. We could have much more influence by pressuring Congressional candidates to vote with us than by depending entirely on the next presidential candidate. Especially, if it is true - as some people suggest - that the country will not vote for a left-liberal candidate?

We may not have the power to influence a national election the way we would like, but we have the power now to organize and to defeat those Congressional candidates that would ignore us and vote with the right-wing way too often and not with the interests of the people. We need to re-focus our energies in a different direction. After all, the power to change lies within the House of Representatives. They control the purse strings. They can determine how long we stay in Iraq or whether we get out. They can determine how much money is appropriated to a "green" economy and how much is invested in new technology.

The left has not been successful at the presidential level. That is a fact. Perhaps, rather than doing the same thing over and over, with the same results, it is time to try something different. I will vote for Barack Obama but I will not support the positions he has taken lately. My hope lies in a strong Democratic Congress that can get legislation signed by a pragmatic Democratic President.

And that would be in the area of national security. That is the only major area that McCain leads Obama in the polls. Most people believe McCain would do a better job of protecting our country than Obama, much due to the fact that the media consistently pushes that idea.

However, in this area, the Democrats should take the advice of Karl Rove and attack your opponents perceived strengths, much like the Repubs attacked John Kerry's war record in 2004. We should learn from our mistakes.

Wesley Clark has been out in front in making the point that John McCain does not have the experience to be Commander in Chief. Simply being a former POW does not add up to "experience". It is about judgement and communication skills. John McCain is severely lacking in both areas. He was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the war in the first place but now wants credit for being one of the first to support the "surge", which has not yet worked - although violence has subsided.

And the reason violence has subsided is because Bush & Co decided to not only talk with the enemy but to negotiate with them also. That is what they did with the Sunnis in the Anbar Province. They talked with the enemy. At the same time, John McCain accuses Barack Obama of wanting to "negotiate with our enemies"? John McCain would like to have his cake and eat it too...

as an American and as a human being. According to McClellan and others, this was Bush's theory of how he could become a "great" President. All great Presidents were "war" Presidents. He has been quoted by several sources that he would do it differently than his Dad if he were President. He would not hesitate to go to war. At least, he would not hesitate to send others to war.

Early in the Administration, his and the neo-con philosophy leaked out to an unsuspecting public that they believed you could "create your own reality". By creating chaos and war, they could create a new reality in the Middle East. They planned on attacking Saddam even before 9/11. In fact, there were several massive bombing missions in the summer before 9/11 in the Basra area. They were going to have their war.

But this theory is sub-human. It is criminal, in my opinion. To create war and upheaval so you can go down in history as a "great" man is incomprehensible to me. How could any rational person think in such a way? The answer is that they can't. It is an insane thought process that would create turmoil and chaos in order to "change the reality".

But throughout history, pain and suffering and death always "changes" reality. In Iraq, Bush and the Neo-cons wanted to create a capitalist utopia in the Middle East. At the heart of their "utopia" would be control of the natural resources of that region, namely oil. If a million people had to die to accomplish this "change", then so be it. That is the price that has to be paid. And in the process, the President goes down in history as a "great" man. That is the delusion that has been the guiding policy of this Adminstration for the last eight years.

But it troubles me that there are so many Americans that defend this policy. That there are so many citizens so easily brainwashed. But they were and they continue to be. The only weapon we have is the truth. Our leaders are insane.

Some Democrats, McAuliffe for one, criticize Scott McClellan for lack of loyalty to his boss. Remember when James Carville compared Bill Richardson to Judas Iscariot? Most Republicans are steaming over McClellan's criticisms of Bush and the Republicans. The ultimate betrayal, they say. But how important is loyalty?

Is it more important to be loyal than to condemn an unnecessary war? Is loyalty more important than being open and honest about matters of life and death? Does loyalty override lies and subterfuge and propaganda? Is there nothing that is more important than loyalty?

Mary Matalin said, “This will stand as the epitome, the ultimate breach of that code of honor.” We know how important loyalty is to her. She worked for Dick Cheney. Bernard Kerik was also highly critical of McClellan. “Having been through all I have been through in the past four years, disloyalty and betrayal seem more prevalent today than ever before in my lifetime, and that in itself, to me, is sickening,” he said. Bob Dole more or less called him a weasel. He said McClellan was a “miserable creature” in a an e-mail that became public. They join other "loyalists" such as Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, Condi Rice, Dana Perino, and Ari Fleischer that have joined in the assault on Scott McClellan.

Loyalty to lies is not honorable. It should not be rewarded. It should be a crime. These "loyalists" have no moral compass. They are lost souls led by a blind man. They should be called for what they are. They are accomplices.

The new book by Scotty McClelland only affirms old truths that many folks knew already. It is useful in that it validates what so many Americans thought all along. It is not just a "culture of deception" as McClelland says, but a conspiracy of betrayal. We see the front line in the conspiracy as they march in front of the TV cameras to denounce him as someone they no longer know. All the traitors line up to defend what they know is wrong, just as Scotty McClelland knew it was wrong. Condi Rice, Dana Perino, Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett line up to defend the "culture of deception".

We know that this White House treated every issue as political, even war. The job of the White House and all those that wished to join the team, was to sell whatever the White House offered. You were either for them or you were against them. In their world, it was easy to divide the nation up between Republicans and Democrats. The worst that could ever happen would be a partisan standstill. It was about message. It was about "selling" the program. Morality or truth were not factors in the equation. Unfortunately, reality finally intervened.

As usual, like trained seals, the media resorts to reporting on the personal aspects of the book. He did it for money. (By the way, it is reported he received only $75,000 up front) Or he was a disgruntled employee. It's all a "puzzle" to everyone that he used to work with.

But it is more than just a "culture of deception". It is a betrayal of everything our nation stands for and against. "What Happened".? Is that a question or an answer? Why did it happen? And how did it happen are more important questions? How could so many people, including people of the stature of Colin Powell, be drawn into this "culture"? If, as Karl Rove says, that Scotty McClelland was not in the circle of knowledge about what was really happening, why should Dana Perino or Ari Fleischer think they would be in that circle?? Surely, they know better, but they continue to defend their positions as defined by those in charge, Dick Cheney and George W Bush.

The media also became a part of this culture, as members of well-established press traditions, such as TIME magazine, were drawn into the deception. As were reporters for the NYTimes and other newspapers. It was a betrayal of yet undefined proportion. It is difficult to define what we do not understand. We cannot understand that which is kept secret from us and "sold" to us as something it is not. So it has been with this White House. And so it continues today because we do not know the truth. The book by Scotty McClelland opens the door just a little but enough to let out the stench. It is up to others, including ourselves, to look further behind that door and expose completely the betrayal of America.

With Edward's endorsement of Barack Obama last night, was that the final nail in the coffin of the "old" Democratic Party? If Hillary is not on the ticket, will the "old" Democrats support the "New" Party? Just what would we define as the "old" Party?

First of all, they believe that every election hinges on either Florida or OH. They do not think outside of that small restricted box. If the Democrat cannot win both of those states, then the Republican will win the next election. It is sad that we have restrained our Party in such a detrimental way. They do not believe we can win any place in the West or in the South. That is "old" thinking.

The "new" Democratic Party believes that we can compete in all 50 states. Governor Dean was the father of this idea. We might call him the father of the New Democratic Party. Barack Obama adopted his strategy. That is why he is ahead of Hillary Clinton at the present time. Hillary thought she could take the old machinery and win the nomination with just a few of the biggest states and the battle would be over FL or OH? The New Democratic Party believes we can win even without FL or OH, but that we will compete for them like all the other states.

The difficult task ahead is to get the "old" Democrats on board with the "new" Party. This is the Party of the future. There are millions of new voters and they are inspired and motivated. They will not sit out the next election. They have made a personal decision that they must be involved in the choosing of our leaders. Progress will not be deterred.

Just as Obama said, he is the "empty vessel" into which all these hopes are poured. This is not a one-person show. This is a grassroots movement. We believe that most Democrats will join us when the battle is narrowed to the Democratic Party vs the Republican Party of the last 15 years. Some may break away into independent blocs, but by and large, we will be united as a Party by the upcoming general election.

The "new" Democratic Party believes in the same principles as the "old" Democratic Party but they believe in fighting much more aggressively for those principles, even as our nominee tries to break the old divisions created by George W Bush, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and the like. We believe they must be defeated. We firmly believe that we can build a coalition of Democrats, Independents, and some Republicans that will defeat the fear-mongers and propagandists that have ruled for too long.

The "New" Party believes that we must change all the old habits and the old politicians that have corrupted our government. We cannot work with these people any longer. We are a Party that is ready to rebuild. Not only will we rebuild our Party but we will rebuild our government and tear down or replace those institutions that have sucked the life out of our government.

It is crucial that those "realists" that support the old system understand that we must make a wholesale change. We cannot fix this government by trimming at the edges. We should unite in that goal.

What would we be looking at right now? After Hillary's blowout win in WV last night, she probably would have been declared the "presumptive" nominee? It is doubtful that Obama would have been in the same place he is today, the probable nominee of our Party.

The actions by Florida and Michigan have changed the parameters and the strategies of the Democratic race for the Presidency. If they had maintained their schedule as defined by Party rules, this race would have been too close to call. The delegate counts and the popular vote would be nose to nose. Also, the momentum of wins in states like Florida and Michigan could have changed the direction of the entire race.

As it is, even with last night's blowout win, Hillary does not appear to have a chance to catch Obama in the delegate count. Without FL and MI, Hillary's numbers are greatly diminished. In the end, she may come close in the popular vote, or she may even win it, but the die is set - thanks mostly to Florida and Michigan.

Is Bill Clinton still the leader of our Party? Is his style of politics still relevant? Do we still have to pander to the conservatives in the South in order to win elections? Or can we win the South by being sensible and rational progressives? Or do we now expand our Party to other parts of the country, including parts of the West and the Middle states?

What does the new Party look like? Will they be as frozen in fear and inaction as the present Democratic Party? Or will they be more daring and aggressive with their agenda? Will they finally pass some healthcare legislation? Will they actually end the war in Iraq? Will they create more jobs and a more equitable tax structure to pay for the needs of our people?

Or will they still be slaves to the DLC and the conservative policies of the past? Will they make more trade deals that favor Big Business? Just how much change can we expect with the "new" Democratic Party? Do you feel more positive about the new direction or do you think everything will stay about the same?

First of all, I think Hillary would be an excellent President. It would be historic for her to be the first woman President. It would make all our daughters and mothers and sisters feel good about themselves. I have no doubt but that Hillary would do a great job. But it is BIGGER than that.

It is about more than just us. It is about humankind. It is about the conditions that we now face in this world. It is about war and peace. It is about saving the world for our daughters and mothers and sisters.

We are on a precipice that calls for the very best leadership we can find. We have antagonized the world. We have created a paranoia amongst some nations, we now call enemies, that have caused them to look for nuclear defense capabilities. We are living in a very dangerous time.

I do not know if Barack Obama can do the job better than Hillary. I can only go with my heart. We need to rebuild our nation and heal our soul. I believe Barack Obama is the best person to help our nation and to create a more peaceful world. That is more important at this time than whether or not we elect the first woman President. This is just my opinion but it is the way I feel.

It is being reported that the wife of the first cousin of Reverend Wright is a hateful and despicable woman. She has screamed epithets in public about the "white devils" that have kept her down all her life. She has used "honky" several times in embarrassing situations, including once in the same church that the Reverend is pastor.

Reverend Wright said he did not associate himself with his cousin's wife's comments but that he would not keep her from attending church. A new Gallup poll shows that 25% of the public is very "disturbed" by the Reverend's refusal to denounce his cousin's wife.

In the same poll, 28% of the public were "disturbed" that Barack Obama refused to disassociate himself from the wife of the cousin of Reverend Wright. It is unknown what impact this will have on Obama's candidacy for the Presidency. Most people said they were "disturbed" that Obama would attend a church where the word "honky" was used so readily. They wondered why he would not just get up and walk out?

In a statement today, the Obama campaign said this controversy was started by the sister of the wife of the first cousin of Reverend Wright. A spokesman said she was "one mean b****" (a word that rhymes with rich). In a sidenote to this breaking story, the husband of the sister of the wife of the first cousin of the Reverend was arrested today for DUI on the back streets of a Chicago neighborhood that is known for its crime and drug-dealing.

Not content with the vilification
Of my good name or intentions,
They wish to violently hammer the nails
Thru my hands and the tops of my feet.

Because I told them the truth, they despised me.
Before the rooster could awaken the sun,
They had betrayed me
With their lies and deceptions.

Although I stood bravely
In the face of the wind,
I could not save this world.
I could not even save myself.
I was but a fearful son of man.
Do not place your hopes into this fragile vessel.

I was but a poor imperfect creature,
Bound to earth
By the limited laws of man.
I speak of courage and hope,
Yet I fear the pain and the weight
Of my lifeless body upon the nails
Of human cruelty and ignorance.

Like old wine in new containers,
They could not appreciate the words
That came to me in spirit.
They laughed and mocked.
They drew straws to see
Who could hammer the first nail.

But I did not surrender.
Because I had hope.
I believed in miracles.
I believed that at the last moment,
A saviour would rescue me
From their evil shadow and intent.

kentuck