Barack Obama is a creature of the mainstream, generally progressive but lacking a single revolutionary bone is his body. First thing he did when hitting Washington was go to Wall Street for PAC money. He quickly got on the Goldman-Sachs gravy train and soon began talking about the Social Security crisis (Goldman-Sachs wants Social Security privatized so they can get investment dollars). He's progressive and far better than McCain, but the Clinton's are probably as revolutionary as Obama. Rev. Wright was his entry to the "yes I am black enough club." At the same time that he cozied up to Wright (a man with whom I have more agreements than disagreements) Obama was touring with Donnie McClurkin, the homophobic black singer/preacher and stroking a black money preachers--you know the "give me money and you'll get rich cause God wants you to have lots of money" type--see article in The Nation--like Jim Bakker, Bennie Hinn, Creflo Dollar, and the mega-church types.

We are not a revolutionary country. Not even our Revolution was really revolutionary, unlike the French and Russian. We are a get-rich-quick country--through prayer or slot machine or lottery--and always have been, even before "Go West Young Man." American is a nation of ponzi schemes not socialists. We don't want real change, we want change, lots of it, preferably in large denominations not pennies. The reformers who fell under Obama's sway don't want too much change either. Many have money--they are mostly upper 30-50's middle-class adults; there are young adults who want to be upper middle-class, blacks who want to be upper middle-class, with a few real reformer-idealists who bought Obama's sweet, sweet song who might be selfless enough to go for genuine political change. But that costs money. The working class doubt that he wants to let them enter that rarefied atmosphere and so with-hold their support. Everyone wants to keep their money and get the government's--that's not the basis of genuine political change.

Forgive errors--to late to proofread

We saw the beginning of the trend after Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein became stars and the schools were filled with wanna-bes. Unfortunately, what they wanted to be was rich and famous not revealers of government corruption. They took the easy path. Sucking up to government officials in the Reagan Administration "On," as one author wrote, "bended knee." The media stars got famous, thus rich, and tied themselves ever more closely to the Republican elite who gave them tax cuts to keep their riches and turned on the Democrats who, like Bill Clinton, raised their taxes to balance the budget and keep programs like the earned income tax credit, minimum wage increases (obviously not a government program but a business bete noir), and education funded and/or enacted. That I think explains the pattern of lies told by the media about the Clinton's (Whitewater, etc.) and later Gore (Love Story, the Internet, etc.). Clinton and Gore clearly had populist tendencies and preferred to tax the rich to pay for working and middle class programs, and the newly important and rich media desperately wanted to keep those nice houses and cars and the Georgetown parties where they hobnobbed with the Republican political class who would, if properly stroked, feed them tips, the truth of which were irrelevant, which keep the reporters above the fold or the lead story and thus famous and therefore rich. It's always follow the money. What remains to be seen is how Obama fares now that he has promised to keep higher taxes on the wealthy. Will they take his praise of Reagan and the Republicans as the people/party of ideas as a wink wink, nod nod or will they see him as in the tradition of Clinton who taxed the rich when he was president and spoke against the Bush II tax cuts, saying "I have plenty of money; I don't need more."

I don't care and neither should anyone else. If Edwards sent troops to die for nothing, destroyed the Constitution, spied on civilians, or raped women or children then I would care and so should everyone else. Every person's sex life is his/her own business, period. I don't care that Baron paid her money either, unless it was government money. If it was campaign money and supporters want it back then it should be returned. The affair is none of our business and hush money and lies to hide a private consensual between two adults should be off-limits to the press! Salon should have ignored this.

I don't care and neither should anyone else. If Edwards sent troops to die for nothing, destroyed the Constitution, spied on civilians, or raped women or children then I would care and so should everyone else. Every person's sex life is his/her own business, period. I don't care that Baron paid her money either, unless it was government money. If it was campaign money and supporters want it back then it should be returned. The affair is none of our business and hush money and lies to hide a private consensual between two adults should be off-limits to the press! Salon should have ignored this.