those 'editing marks' so I don't have to re-do them just for mydd? Thanks in advance.

What the heck? End of cross-posting.

If our purpose in the Middle East were to fight terrorism, you'd be right. But United States' actual purpose is political control, imperial control, of the resources of the Middle East. For that you need armies of invasion and occupation. You can be pretty sure we'll never have good intelligence in the Middle East as long as our purpose is as I have described it.

In other words, I don't think U.S. policy makers are stupid (do you really think the best policy experts from both the Republican and Democratic Parties can't see that they're shooting themselves continuously in the foot if our supposed purpose, to defeat 'terror', is transmuted into wars of occupation in strategic and resource-rich Middle Eastern countries?), and that they just haven't thought of your excellent suggestion. They simply have different goals and purposes than you do. I wish it weren't so, but there it is.

is one less than a binary vision, so I have you there. You might have added that in effect the bill's also a massive tax increase on millions of people who can't afford that. Drug company profits and inevitable price increases are also long-term protected. And there will be no cost controls so whatever regulatory 'gains' from the health don't care companies (by hopefully disallowing current abuses) they'll take back in increased premiums and profits.

All in all like I said 2 years ago: 'can't do much at all (or maybe we've made things worse for most people in the bottom 80%) cuz the PTB are too powerful.'

Yes, in part, but also heavily under the influence of campaign commercials and the corporate mass media's conventional wisdom. But allowing oneself to be heavily under such influence is a decision for many or most, and a decision that has gone glaringly against the interest of individuals in the bottom 80% for at least a couple of decades.

The diary had nothing to do with realism/unrealism, election strategy, it was simply an expression of frustration over Dem voters not choosing their favorite candidate based on which one would advance the voters' self interests. The two candidates most bought out by corporate interests and least likely to benefit the bottom 80% of us led all others by a substantial margin even in November 2007, when 'realism' demands on voters (i.e., now 'good' has not chance so choose 'bad' cuz he/she is not as bad as 'very bad') are not relevant.

This diary was simply expressing frustration with the fact that two-thirds of Dems had already chosen the two most strongly corporate candidates among the bunch running back in late November, 2007. It has to do with the people expressing their will for the two candidates wrongly, against their own interests, and nothing to do with the strategic pluses or minuses of the Dems nominating Kucinich. Presumably people would've continued to vote against their own best interests in the general elections, and, winning strategy-wise, nominating Kucinich would've been a bad idea. I was just frustrated over the foundation for why it would've been a bad idea, people voting against the candidate who would do the best for their self-interest.

Repubs way out ahead of Dems on the faux populist anger front, which will be a very important factor in the mid-term elections.

In a voice vote four years ago, only Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, expressed opposition to Mr. Bernanke's first nomination. This time, five other Republican committee members joined him, while four approved the nomination.

Only one Democrat, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, opposed the nomination. He said that while Mr. Bernanke had proved "adroit with the fire hose," he also bore some responsibility for having allowed the economic blaze to erupt.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ 12/17/banking-panel-approves-bernanke-16 -7/

No Sherrod Brown, who has disqualified himself as a possible authentic progressive. There'll be a few more Dems on the Senate floor.

I bet. See

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/12/16/104 115/84

Now is a time when every progressive who's aware of what Obama's real politics should be talking third party. We need to try something to scare the Democrats back toward the people, because 'elect more Dems' ain't worked.

Yes, censorship means disappearing someone's words. Duh. Even if he is still able to comment and get his words disappeared again.

running against Obama's war in Afghanistan. Could become all the rage if it works for Specter in his primary.

Cool! And why not, he's not running for anything and doesn't need the health care corporate borg's campaign donations.

have a question like that? Here he threatens Iran, North Korea, Sudan, the Congo, and Burma:

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/ europe/11prexy.text.html?_r=1&pagewa nted=all

Pakistan, because it allows sanctuary to the Viet C-- I mean Taliban.