Letters to the Editor
-
Or,
maybe Al Gore hesitates to endorse Obama because Obama supports nuclear power and the method of obtaining "clean coal" that blows the tops off of mountains.
-
Hey anon...
Nuclear power emits no carbon. We have a stockpile of fuel (tho they're weapons right now). We could lower worldwide carbon emissions by a huge amount if we switched, and it's a switch we can make in a short amount of time.
Modern technology prevents meltdown. To be sure, we do need a containment policy/plan for the waste, but if we put our minds to it, we can do that.
I really don't get why us lefties are so by and large opposed to the one technology that could save the planet (well, the humans, anyway).
-
nuclear power =
nuclear waste
-
Obama gets a -10 % bump
Kerry is not very popular with Democrats especially in the South. What is Obama thinking?
-
My reaction to this?
It's no reaction at all.
I just realized that I don't care one whit who another politician endorses -- and now wonder exactly how much this really matters to a majority of informed voters.
We can debate all day long about the "Oprah Effect". If it exists, it's probably due to her star appeal to people who aren't already politically involved. She essentially speaks to those to whom traditional politicians don't already speak.
But a Kerry endorsement of Obama? It will be old news before the end of the week. And Tim Johnson? Not exactly a household name anywhere outside S. Dakota! Wouldn't even qualify as "sound and fury, signifying nothing" -- very little sound, and no fury, but still probably signifying nothing.
-
First NH, now this?
Talk about getting kicked while your down.
-
Kerry's endorsement will be the kiss of death for any candidate
Kerry? You're kidding, right?
Kerry is still in rehab from his shameful defeat brought about in part because he went limp in the saddle. What does his endorsement count for?
Seems to me that his support could only remind all voters of a very sour and confused time in recent political history.
Stay home John, please.
-
A Rather Ignominious Endorsement, One Would Think,
From a guy who didn't care enough about the country or his own dignity to fight the massive fraud in Ohio that gave Bush the Presidency--again.
-
Gore be Bold
I hope Al Gore endorses Edwards.
Edwards is closer to Gore on the issue of global warming so Al could make a principled endorsement rather than just a political endorsement like Kerry did. Another reason to endorse Edwards is that it would probably give Gore great satisfaction to stick his finger in the eye of the national media who treated Gore so shabbily in 2000 just like they are doing to Edwards in 2008. Besides who wants to just jump on the bandwagon of Obama or Clinton. How boring would that be.
Be Bold Al, Endorse Edwards
-
It's a good thing endorsements don't matter.
Even the noble Gore will be 15 seconds. I hope he endorses and Obama and stumps for him, though. Obama's position on auctioning CO2 credits is a step in the right direction. Gore must realize how much money there is to be made in pollution reduction, and that money better go to the people.
-
Nobody in this election shares Gore's position from 2000
Al said he believes in a Drug Free America.
If Bush were running now, not even he would dare mouth such an idiotic slogan.
We can't even keep our prisons drug free.
-
Great sound of the train rolling!
Of course this is good for Obama; it continues his message of electability against the (remember?) insistence of Hillary's inevitability. And it's good timing, as well. Hillary has all the pundits insisting her support by the establised Democrats (i.e. party rulers) gives her the nomination. Which is how the Republicans have won in the past.
Had Billy Shaheen (remember? he of the repititious cocaine comments?) not exacted his revenge of Obama with the mobilization of his wife's network of over-40 feminists, Big O would be overcome with Big Mo---probably to his ultimate detriment.
But you have to wonder at the timing of the tears and the turnout, (and, dare I suggest?--the Steinem article that played the gender and race cards?) don't you? I mean, are there any coincidences when it comes to the Clintons?
MEK
-
Ethanol
Obama continues to tout the benefits of replacing gasoline with ethanol, which is not the smartest solution. He really needs to be educated on that issue.
I still think all this cross-over Obama support from Republicans and Independents are mainly anti-Hillary votes. They are supporting him now, but he will not get their votes in the general election. The Dems need to wise up to this effort, which many Iowans already admitted to.
-
Obama's Senate Homeland Security Committee to Discuss "The Stifling of Dissent Act" of 2008
And where will Barack Obama be when the Senate reconvenes on January 22nd? He sits on the Homeland Security Committee that will be discussing the "Homegrown Terrorism Act" which is nothing more than a burning of our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech.
Perhaps Mr. Obama should suspend his "campaigning" and have the cameras follow him into the Senate where he can prove to the American people that he has every intention, if elected POTUS, to "PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC".
Thanks to Jane Harman (D-CA), the House already passed this rotten infringement of our First Amendment rights by a vote of 404-6 and unless Sen. Obama shows up to fight it (along with Clinton and McCain AND), we will know NONE of them deserve our vote.
Here's a video on the current situation we are facing:
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=197342
I watched the first hearing in the House Intelligence Committee with Jane Harman where a representative from the Simon Wiesenthal Center did a Power Point showing the website of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" as an example of an organization that is a "national security threat" because they are using "force" (look up the definition of "force") to convince millions of Americans to question the 9/11 Commission Report's findings. The video link to this hearing can be found in the middle of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7339
Consider that WTC 7 fell to the ground on 9/11 at free fall speed into dust! at 5:20 pm that day and WAS NEVER HIT BY A PLANE...and not a word about it in the final report! (To mention but one of the MANY discrepancies).
If you check ae911truth.org/ and watch the presentation video by Richard Gage you'll understand why the Congress wants to shut these people up.
When the Senate passes this legislation (and they most certainly will without a major lobbying effort against it by the American People), and Bush signs it into law, you might as well take a piece of duct tape and put it across your mouth, and stay off the Internet, lest you write something too "forceful".
It is very clear now that Ari Fleischer meant it the day after 9/11 when he said, "You'd better watch what you SAY and watch what you DO." In a few months even this post could land me in prison. Think about it.