The economic news is not good. The economic condition under McCain will be a disaster because he has the same deregulation & low-taxes-for-the-rich philosophy that will run the country further into debt. The value of the dollar internationally has tanked.The fed just coughed up 30 BILLION for a bailout, possibly to keep Wall Steet from tumbling. By November, the cracks in the pavement on Wall Street may have grown to the size of the Grand Canyon. At best, whoever sits in the Oval office will inherit a VERY fragile economy. People are arguing about the word ‘recession’ but the risk may be a depression the likes of which we have not seen in 75 years. Bread lines and tent cities. Wake up; this is no game with a restart button.

And you seriously propose we leave Republicans in office so we can BLAME them? How many millions do you think should suffer so you can safely lay blame? Because either of the Democratic candidates has a better grip on economics than McCain.

No, it isn’t. Fall of Saigon, 1975. Elections of 1976, Dems win.

I don’t know if you are old enough to remember those years, but I am. Other than some bitter-enders on the Right, the whopping majority of Americans didn’t give a shit what happened in Vietnam once we were out. Everybody was sick of it. If you pay close attention, most of the people these days who get worked up over the peacenik Dems losing Vietnam are too young to actually have remembered those years. And this is because they believe the lies they’ve been told.

On the other hand, it’s clear that we’ve been blamed and continue to be blamed for Viet Nam.

If you’re talking about losing Vietnam — that’s a Right Wing fabricated narrative, Nick. It doesn’t have anything to do with what Dems actually did. Think of it as a party-wide swift boating.

Second, I’m reluctant to see our first black president get ravaged by what are likely to be four very extremely difficult years, the blame for which rightly belongs to the Republicans.

I repeat, if John McCain is president for four years, and continues Dubya’s tax and economic and war policies as he promises to do, IN FOUR YEARS THE COUNTRY WILL BE IN AN EVEN BIGGER EFFING MESS THAN IT IS NOW!!!!!

Basically, you’re saying that we’ll keep Republicans in charge until there’s nothing in the way of a country left to govern. Not a plan.

I think a large majority of Americans fully understand that the Bush Administration screwed the pooch, and they’re going to be understanding if the problems aren’t solved right away. As long as they see that government is doing something to solve the problems, I think they’ll give him some time before they blame him for the problems.

Second, I’m reluctant to see our first black president get ravaged by what are likely to be four very extremely difficult years, the blame for which rightly belongs to the Republicans. It’s because I want to see him succeed that I am concerned (just as any decent person wanted to see Jackie Robinson succeed); I’m not worried that he won’t be as capable at the job as a white person. It’s just a set up for failure.

Third, George is correct.

I will support Clinton if she is the nominee, even if she wins it through extra-electoral means. I will support a turnip or any other root vegetable over any Republican. But I will not do either of these things with any enthusiasm. I have respect for neither Clinton nor turnips.

I am in a crappy mood today. Don’t know why. Feeling very disillusioned with the whole world. I am not a Democrat nor a Repug. simply because I dislike signing up to “belief systems”. To top it all, I am getting very annoyed with Hillary and also Obama to a lesser extent. Perhaps it is because this thing is being dragged out too long or maybe it’s just me. Have been thinking lately that if Clinton gets the nomination, I just won’t vote. Now, I know that is the wrong attitude. Wouldn’t vote for McCain if I was tortured. So, I know you probably have gone into all this before but humor me and explain to me why it is so important that we get a Democrat in the White House. Right now I need a talking to.

And if John McCain is president for four years, and continues Dubya’s tax and economic and war policies as he promises to do, IN FOUR YEARS THE COUNTRY WILL BE IN AN EVEN BIGGER EFFING MESS THAN IT IS NOW!!!!!

Are we waiting for the Good Government Fairy?

The American people, on the whole, have realized the nation’s economy is bad even as media and the Republicans told them otherwise. They also realize, now, that Bush is a five-alarm screwup. I think a majority of them can understand that Bush made a heck of a mess that won’t be fixable overnight.

We need to get the White House in Dem hands in 2008, even if it’s Hillary Clinton’s hands. No screwing around with this.

Get over this obsession with personalities. Keep your eyes on the prize: a Democratic-controlled White House and thus the appointment power over thousands of key jobs in all executive agencies, regulatory bodies, and the courts. These people make thousands of crucial decisions every day. The real question is: Do we want them to be Democrats or pro-corporate, anti-regulatory, anti-civil rights Republicans. The Republicans understand how important this is. When will we?

In regards to the website theoildrum.com: there are lots of prognosticators and pundits out there if you look who are warning us that we are soon going to face a sharp drop in the worlds oil supply (my favorite is James Howard Kunstler and the Long Emergency) – but I wonder if it isn’t mostly hogwash meant to be provocative. The point I take from them is that our urban areas have been progressively getting more reliant on the automobile since the end of World War II and if gasoline becomes tremendously more expensive it could be much harder to get around cities. I know the great Maha lives in New York – but here in flyover land it would be tough getting around without a car, the US has virtually no train or bus system, and no significant decision maker appears to even be aware of the problems it could cause. Anyway, I’m way off subject…

Now I am not suggesting that it was deliberate, but the suggestion that we do not want our first black president to be thrown in the ‘hot seat’ feels faintly racist. Do you think it’s a good idea if a black man is eventually pesident, but we won’t give him any tough problems? After all he’s a black president and can’t be expected to perform as well as a white man. Whether you intended it or not, that’s going to be the argument when he is the nominee – that the problems may be too tough for the first black president. I for one will be the first to stomp and stomp hard on that . Ditto if Clinton is the nominee and the you substitute ‘woman’.