He’s One of Us Now

Do you suppose those Democrats can read? Because his position on the issues is clearly stated on his site and conveniently broken down into abstracts as well as in depth analysis and proposal for a plan to address each. Admittedly a few issues are not addressed directly, for example, the issue of restoring our civil liberties and yet every candidate WITH THE EXCEPTION F CLINTON signed a pledge to work toward that end. Hillary tends to be supported by people who are told by their unions who to support, but every one of us should be committed at his point in history to make an informed decision when we vote.

Do you suppose those Democrats can read? Because his position on the issues is clearly stated on his site and conveniently broken down into abstracts as well as in depth analysis and proposal for a plan to address each. Admittedly a few issues are not addressed directly, for example, the issue of restoring our civil liberties and yet every candidate WITH THE EXCEPTION F CLINTON signed a pledge to work toward that end. Hillary tends to be supported by people who are told by their unions who to support, but every one of us should be committed at his point in history to make an informed decision when we vote.

The youth segment of any generation is full of idealism, hope, and (almost) blind faith that tomorrow will be better than today and or any time previous to their present. That is not a bad thing; it generates energy and creative thinking. But it is totally counter-productive to denigrate the caution gained from real life experience of those who are older and have seen it all before. Most people, regardless of their "generation" want what's best for the country. This is not limited to those under 30. Everyone everywhere, but especially in the print media, must stop the endless chatter, the buzzwords, the citing of historical trivia (often incorrectly) as if it were all there is of the previous generations.

This is more silly commentary based on recieved, media-generated ideas that fall apart on critical analysis, but of the sort that passes for editorial content in this impoverished age. It accepts as givens that people can be categorized as to their thoughts, ideals, and aspirations according to when they were born; it revels in media-generated but empty labels for whole groups of individuals ("boomers", "millenials", etc.), positing that these are valid categories; it forgets that, according to the useless and media-determined contoures of the "Baby Boom generation", Obama is one of them (1946-1964). Ultimately, what will get this country back on track is more critical thinking, not more parroting of media buzz words

Obama is a great cult leader. He insprire the young voters who seems very shallow in thinking things through. All the youth are not very good at thinking deeply to any issue. Youths all think they are doing think right, but most rerults prove them wrong.

Lest we forget: Last fall Hillary enjoyed universal name recognition and the adoration of the African-American community. She was the consensus nominee with a double-digit lead over the field and an overflowing war chest. And now??? She has proven to be shockingly inept running a campaign. Shouldn???t we be terrified of her in the White House? Small wonder her backers are ???rattled???.

While everyone from Eisenhower's daughter to some pretty far out folks on this posting stands up for their candidates, there is an undercurrent passionate voters are going to be drowned in if our current Superdelgate system continues. Check out Dan Abrams on msnbc. He's been talking about Superdelegates and introduced the downside of this system, which we all seem to accept as inevitable. Not me. Here is the facts, folks. Each SuperDelegate can, with their single vote, wipe out 90,000 already placed votes. Are we Americans Nuts? Why would we stand still for this system? Please check out the email I sent to Abrams below. (exerpts only)
--------------------------
. Here's my input about SuperDelegates. They should go. They have no place in a democracy. They were not included in our forefather's plans for our democratic republic. Super Delegates caused a horrible divide in America when they upset the Gore nomination. The upset of the popular vote by SuperDelegates convinced many that Bush's folks had influenced, perhaps orchestrated the "hanging chads." I understand that SuperDelegates are intended to smooth things over. Not working, folks.

In addition, other countries don't understand how we can say we are a one vote, one person democracy when the popular vote can be overturned by a handful of 'insiders" after the completion of supposedly democratic elections. To them, it seems flagrantly hypocritical -- if not outright fraud.

Dan Abrams, please, ignore the slams and keep working for a true democracy. NO SUPERDELEGATES NOW OR EVER.

Please folks, if you agree, contact your party and tell them to revert to NO Superdelegates. It was jimmyrigged onto our constitutional right to vote. It doesn't belong in a democracy. If there is a tie, then there needs to be a better way to break the tie. Not with insiders or anyone who has never voted before. Thanks for "listening." JMB