This is excerpts of an article by Zunes.

On one hand, he’s the first serious candidate in the past two decades to seriously dispute the neo-liberal orthodoxy on international trade. He has challenged the hawkish front-runner Hillary Clinton on a number of issues and has called for the withdrawal of the vast majority of American forces from Iraq. He has questioned calls by President George W. Bush and some of his Democratic rivals to expand the armed services by nearly 100,000 troops. He has disagreed with the Bush administration’s framing of the struggle against Islamist extremists as a “war on terror” as well as its overemphasis on military means, instead arguing for “a comprehensive strategy to respond to terrorism and prevent it form taking root in the first place.”

Edwards has called for a dramatic increase in spending for development programs aimed at the world’s poor, particularly in health care and education, as well as an expansion of support for microcredit programs. He has proposed dramatic reform and better accounting of the military budget. And, he has recognized that climate change is a major threat to national security that needs to be addressed seriously.

As a senator, Edwards distinguished himself as one of the more conservative Democrats through supporting such controversial measures as providing unconditional military aid to the repressive government of Colombia and voting for funding the dangerous and expensive Trident D-5 submarine nuclear missile program. He also voted in favor of an amendment that prohibits the United States from cooperating in any way with the International Criminal Court in its prosecution of individuals responsible for serious crimes against humanity. This vindictive law also restricts U.S. foreign aid to countries that support the ICC and authorizes the president of the United States to use military force to free individuals from the United States or allied countries detained by the ICC.

I am not convinced that Edwards is the Progressive that we on the Left are looking for to lead this country in a new direction. If you are thinking of voting for a Progressive cndidate, then may I suggest that you do more research into the candidates and not rely on the rhetoric to make your decision for you.

Since the campaigns and the rest of the world has seemed to become non-existent and taken a backseat to the season–I would like to wish all my readers and posters–a very MERRY CHRISTMAS!

I will return on 26 Dec 07 and begin the task of observing the world and the crap that goes on.

To all have a very good day and may all the joy of the season live in your house.

It has been a slow week, not much happen other than the campaigns and a couple of missing people, and ………..plus I have been fighting a horrendous cold…..so the update will not be as extensive as it has in the past.

ALL THE NEWS
ONE CANNOT USE!

1–The world’s oldest man has died–age 116–the key? he was never married.

2–A square envelope at Xmas will cost 17 cents more

3– The Queen of UK turns 81–who cares?

4–Britney’s lil sis is pregnant–and she is surprised she is with child–how dumb is this little shit?

5–People are still dying in Iraq–just thought I would let you know since the media will not!

6–The military throws away Xmas letters to wounded soldiers–

That is it–enough is enough! BYE–BE WELL!

For those die hard Repubs that are trying to decide in which direction to go with their vote, here is the only chance that they will have to beat Clinton, according to the latest polls.

RCP Average	11/11 to 12/19	–	47.0%	46.7%	McCain +0.3%
FOX News	12/18 – 12/19	900 RV	47%	42%	McCain +5%
CNN	12/06 – 12/09	RV	50%	48%	McCain +2%
Gallup	11/11 – 11/14	897 RV	44%	50%	Clinton +6%

Years ago when I became more radicalized, this quote was one that meant a lot about what I was feeling towards my government….

“Let them call me a rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul….”

Thomas Paine

This is what has happened to the American voter—they have prostituted their very being to the pimps in Washington. They NEVER think of anything but themselves, their individual selfs. That is not America…..the country becomes a whorehouse.

I found this article while reading the Politico site and I think it is a good piece that brings to light good points.

Before wading into the morass of conflicting claims about the role of senatorial experience as preparation for the responsibilities of the Oval Office it would be prudent to ask just what the president does.

This seems like a question that common sense could easily answer, but it is not.

The modern presidency operates at many complex levels — strategic, political, constitutional and symbolic, and it does so in domestic and international circumstances permeated by division and threat.

So, before we can say if senatorial experience counts, we must first answer the question of where it is most important that it do so.

The twin answers to that question are judgment and leadership. We rely on the president to see the problems the country faces clearly, understand their implications and put them into the proper framework for analysis. That is judgment.

We also expect a president to be able to mobilize others in pursuit of a fitting solution, help orchestrate and channel those efforts, and consolidate any success into lasting accomplishments. That is political leadership.

This short list of seemingly straightforward presidential tasks belies their complexity and difficulty.

Good judgment and effective leadership are often a byproduct of learning from experience, both successful and otherwise, that is relevant.

So the first question we must ask of a presidential candidate’s experience is whether it is relevant to making the complex, tough, and often controversial trade-offs that often face a president and whether that experience includes translating those judgments into successful policy solutions.

Regrettably for candidates who tout their senatorial careers, this would seem to preclude giving much weight to their legislative experience.

The problem is not that these senatorial experienced candidates are not smart or capable.

It is that while the Senate may well be an incubator for presidential ambitions, but it is not a good training ground for presidential responsibilities.

Consider the differences. A senator is one of a hundred. The president is singular and unique. A senator casts a vote. The president makes decisions.

A senator’s vote is one of many; the president’s decisions are where the buck stops. Senators have few responsibilities for national leadership and most rarely exercise their limited and narrower opportunities for issue leadership.

The president’s national and worldwide leadership is required, and often demanded on a daily basis. A senator may, over the course of his or her career, become a specialist in a few subjects.

The president is expected to be well-versed in many.

A senator doesn’t govern, run an administration or have responsibility for any more than his or her own office staff.

A president is responsible for all the agencies of the federal government, many of them engaged in complex and difficult policy decisions — these, too, ultimately are the president’s responsibility.

And finally, senators do not personally have to make life-or-death decisions regarding the fate of this country.

Senators have a strictly advisory position, cushioned from command responsibility by layers of words and the ability to reinterpret what they really meant when they voted for or against a piece of legislation. They are therefore insulated from the intense emotional and political burdens of having to stand alone before the country and the world on the basis of their judgments.

One obvious response to these facts is to cite Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.

Lincoln is rated one of our great presidents and had only one term in the House of Representatives before he won the presidency in 1860.

Kennedy found his short legislative life in Congress boring but is fondly remembered as smart, charming and, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, masterful.

The brief response to those examples is that the presidency of 2008 requires a great deal more of its occupant than the office did in 1860. Lincoln’s justified reputation is based on one absolutely crucial judgment that he successfully made: to preserve the union.

No amount of experience of whatever kind can adequately prepare a president for those national life-or-death decisions.

As for Kennedy, his good judgment and leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis was preceded by his much poorer judgment and presidential leadership at the Bay of Pigs.

In this case, good judgment did come from experience — that of learning from his mistakes.

There is no inherent reason why a senator cannot make a good president in spite of his lack of relevant experience.

However, the nature of senatorial life ordinarily precludes us from learning anything much about the soundness of a senator’s judgment in the types of complex decisions that face a president every day or in his ability to provide the country with leadership that only a president can bring to bear on the issues that face us.

We take a risk in selecting any person for the presidency, but experience that we can judge — and that is relevant to what the president actually does — helps us to manage those risks.

If Clinton, Biden, McCain, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama or Fred Thompson want to convince us that they belong in the presidency, they will have to make arguments on grounds other than their senatorial experience.

Stanley Renshon is a professor of political science at the City University of New York and a certified psychoanalyst.

<!– var TFSMFlash_VERSION=6; var TFSMFlash_WMODE=”window”; var TFSMFlash_OASCLICK=”http://oascentral.politico.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.politico.com/ideas/stories/L30/231171618/x13/Accpolco/Politico_Shenanigans/Shenanigans_336x45.html/517a794d6c5564726b45594141555765&#8243;; var TFSMFlash_SWFCLICKVARIABLE=”?clickTAG=http://oascentral.politico.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.politico.com/ideas/stories/L30/231171618/x13/Accpolco/Politico_Shenanigans/Shenanigans_336x45.html/517a794d6c5564726b45594141555765?http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/&#8221;; var TFSMFlash_SWFFILE=”http://imagec05.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/Accpolco/Politico_Shenanigans/Shenanigans_336x45.swf/1189664982″+TFSMFlash_SWFCLICKVARIABLE; var TFSMFlash_IMAGEALTERNATE=”http://imagec05.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/Accpolco/Politico_Shenanigans//1189664982&#8243;; var TFSMFlash_OASALTTEXT=”Click Here”; var TFSMFlash_OASTARGET=”_blank”; var TFSMFlash_OASPROTOCOL=”http://&#8221;; var TFSMFlash_OASDIM=”WIDTH=’336′ HEIGHT=’45′”; var TFSMFlash_OASADID=”ad_banner”; document.write(”); –>

You remember her/ She slapped a DC congressional guard and all sh*t broke loose. Well she is seeking the nomination of the Green Party to represent the Party in the presidential contest next year.

“The Democrats, no different than their Republican counterpart, eat out of the hands of corrupt lobbyists and feed at the same corporate trough,” McKinney says in the video. “I am proud to say the Green Party is my new political home.”

In recent weeks, McKinney has traveled to campaign rallies and fund-raisers in Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin trying to organize party support and get her name on state ballots. She said she plans to campaign in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Hugh Esco, who works on the McKinney campaign and runs her Web site, declined to comment Wednesday.

The firebrand six-time Democratic congresswoman from Georgia’s 4th congressional district was defeated in 2002, bounced back and won in 2004, and then was defeated by Hank Johnson in 2006. At least six Green Party candidates are running against her. The July nominating convention for the Green Party will be in Chicago.

McKinney is the only former major-party candidate running for president as a Green in 2008, but she is the second black woman from Georgia to declare her Green Party presidential candidacy.

The following is a press release from the GP.

The candidates: Jared Ball, Elaine Brown, Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, Ralph Nader, Kat Swift

WASHINGTON, DC — The Green Party will have up to seven candidates for the party’s presidential nomination on state ballots for the primary elections in 2008.

“The Green Party, in most states where Greens have ballot status, participate in the primaries just as Democrats and Republicans do,” said Jim Coplen, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States. “Green voters will vote in the primaries the same way registered Democrats and Republicans vote.”

Among other primaries, the Green Party will participate primaries in four states on February 5. The Green Party has vowed to achieve 51 ballot lines in 2008 in all the states and the District of Columbia, and has committed party resources for this purpose. Greens currently have ballot access in 21 states Green Parties (including DC).

Just trying to keep you informed…I love my job!

Have you seen the recent Huck ad–where he just wishes everyone a merry Xmas, well, we all knew that the criticisms would begin. Some say he was politicizing Xmas….or exploiting his Christianity….or ….you get the picture. I mean they will focus on the cross over his shoulder, which he says was a bookcase not intended to be a cross…he says there was no script it was purely a “wing it” moment.

Of course, now that everyone is weighing in on his ad….he is saying that it is just sad that a person cannot wish a merry xmas to people without being scrutinized as having an ulterior motive.

IMO, this was a brilliant ploy! He makes the ad and his opponents bring attention to his faith and he can say he just wanted to wish everyone the best during the holidays. It is brilliant! Devious? Of course! But absolutely f*cking brilliant! His opponents are doing his campaigning for him….Damn! More people need to study his techniques..he is a genius…or someone in his campaign is a genius……..Kudos!