1) Hillary would never lead us into socialism, she makes to much money from big business to ever consider such a thing.

2) Hillary doesn't have much more experience, she's only been in the Senate a few more years then Obama, and being the wife of a president doesn't count as experience, nor does being a lawyer, and Obama's name doesn't really matter, just because it sounds different doesn't mean that one should care.

3) McCain is just a Bush clone, although he'd probably be slightly better, but still.

And even if a third party broke off from the democrats, which would never happn, but if it did, nothing would change. If you want to win an election, you must promise change. To keep power, you must cater to the rich and repaint rust when the next election comes, and try to make it look like you did something when you actually did nothing.[quote who="Leauki"]

This whole argument just drives me crazy.  So much for transcending race or the post-racial candidate.

So not wearing a pin means that Obama's going to commit treason and that he's a filthy facist who wants to destroy America and all it stands for? And one could very easily show disdain for the working class, as they could for most of America. America no longer cares for quality work, education knowledge etc., and we're slowly getting dumber and fatter, and the average American is giving unnecesary, undue weight to frivolous things such as gender, race or religion, and we ignore issues and listen to 30 second to 2 minute answers for questions instead of listening to candidates actually go in depth about an issue, and we're getting a massive debt that's only geting larger and larger. America is a better place to live then a large part of the world, but their are still many issues that make America a bad country.

A typical example. The average american is far more sexist, homophobic and xenophobic then other places in the world, and at the same time we claim that we're "free" and we claim that what makes America great is how we welcome other people here with open arms, and how anyone can become rich if they work at it, despite the fact that that's just an utter lie. Chances are if you were born poor, you'll die poor, just how if you were born rich, chances are you'll die rich, even when you have no real talents.

American wars against the Indians had nothing to do with capitalism. In China it was communist policies that killed millions, not military expansion but economic policies.

Imperialism didn't have a crippling effect in Africa, but handing over Africa to local dictators did. Africa wasn't poor when run by the British and French.

If you can blame poverty in Africa today on what the British did a hundred years ago, you can blame anything on anybody.

The British Empire did not command Mugabe to tyranise Zimbabwe and destroy its economy.

The British Empire did not command Nigeria to attack and destroy Biafra.

The British Empire did not command all African governments to react to AIDS with "folk remedies" and in fact it is Christian missionaries, brought there by the imperialism, that are working to stop the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

You cannot blame the Europeans or capitalism for crimes commited by people who were neither European nor capitalists.

The African dictator's crimes are their own and the economic situation of Africa is their fault, not Europe's.

Wol,

Most of your posting doesn't make a lot of sense, since you didn't quote correctly.

China's economic policies caused millions of deaths under Mao. His policies were certainly not capitalistic. Today's China might have more capitalistic policies than we do. But today's China is not nearly the killer communist China used to be.

You will find that that was true in all communist countries.

Did you know that the common argument in eastern European countries against unions was that unions were unecessary since workers would only strike against themselves (since workers ran the country)? In East-Germany, unions as we think of them didn't exist. The official unions they had were entities that organised picnics and helped workers with their vacation requests.

Thet didn't have a right to strike or "worker protection" or anything like that.

Those are all things that developed in capitalist societies.

How you make the step from "communism" to "far more workers' rights" is beyond me. I have never seen a communist country that offered more workers' rights than the US or western European countries.

In communist countries the "means of production" were indeed communally owned. It was illegal even to sell something on the streets.

"In America, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, The Party can always find you!"

-- Yakov Smirnoff

"In America, you watch television. In the Soviet Union, television watches you!"

Boy! Do I miss those days!

Sad to see that the writer of this article holds such racist views. Hillary is seen as racist amongst blacks because of things that came out during the campaign. At the start of the campaign Clinton was winning the african american vote, media pundits were then asking if Obama was 'black enough' because one would expect a candidate to do well amongst his own culture. It wasn't until Bill Clinton said the idea of a black president is a fairytale, and geradine ferrarro said Obama was only winning cause he was black, until Clinton said around the Pennsylvania or Indiana primaries that she is calling out white america to come support her; until those three events Clinton was splitting the black vote with Obama.

The idea that black people don't vote for Clinton because she is white is lol funny because I guess black people never voted for any of the other 43 presidents. They just sat around waiting for a black one. As for bringing up race, I blame that on Clinton, she brought it up not Obama, and he is still trying to ignore the roll of race. 25% of W.virgina voters voted against Obama because he was black according to the exit polls, Obama choose not to make an issue out of this. It is Clinton who keeps bringing up how only she can win the white vote, which democrats have never won since jfk and johnson.

So when people say Obama goes beyond race they are talking about the fact that Obama doesn't go  on tv and say black people support me, like clinton does with whites.

I'm not going to make excuses for Obama's pastor,and I don't think everything posted here is factual or an accurate copy of what he said, but in the words of Huckabee if you grew up in a time where the gov. told you where you could eat, sleep, go to school, own property, go to hospital, drive,drink out of a fountain and piss, living worse than a prisoner but at the same time being supposedly free and all the other things we do without thinking, for no other reason than the color of your skin, you might be 'bitter' too!

Really think about it,25% of white people won't vote for a black man, but who were the ones who got the bad, the rotten end of the stick in segregation.

As for the bitter comments, well I know people who lost jobs to nafta and they are bitter a hell over it. I'm not a democrat but I don't like how the Clinton supporters simply ignore all of the things she says wrong and rip out obama's tongue for the smallest slip up. The guy got in trouble for callng a reporter sweetie for shit sacks. Clinton said she was under sniper fire and seems to get away with it. Clinton critics Obama for his links to that guy who bombed the pentagon but it was her husband who pardoned that terrorist from prison so she is not much better especially considering the fact that she takes money from all sorts of special interest.