well, i agree with bella that the internet has mitigated the damage done by allowing the concentration of the media in too few hands. but, as we speak, in the congress, they are working on a bill that will affect NET NEUTRALITY. this is no joke. this is mega serious. this is HUGE. having the internet available to all is democracy at its best. the same old games of manipulation do NOT work because the people are involved, remember the ‘macaca’ incident? the ‘tuzla’ incident? politicians can not lie to us as they did before, corporations cannot manipulate us as they did before, media can not form our views as they did before. the corporations, politicians, media giants want control BACK, where it belongs, in their hands. for good and bad the people are involved, the spin is recognized as ‘spin’ and the media power loses its’ sway. “In February 2008, Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts introduced H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act. This legislation would establish a national broadband policy that would allow internet users to access the legal content, applications, and services of their choosing and prohibit unreasonable favoritism of content by internet providers. The Internet Freedom and Preservation Act has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee,” i found this link, a short 2 minute video, done by a small activist group formed as a result of katrina. it explains, in the simplest of terms, what is going on: http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=8ymCR3DDizw&rel=1&eurl=http%3A…

no, kinda odd, i guess. it was the late 60’s, i was living in manhattan, and i started working for, what at the time, was the fledgling computer industry. however, i was not aware of any discrimination towards me. my success was referred to as meteoric and i basically got my own way. i eventually ran 5 states, had a great expense account, flew a lot and was not tied to a particular office nor a stifling routine. speaking of flying, those were the days when flying was pretty civilized. you could book a flight, walk on the plane, sit where you wanted, and, if the spirit moved you, you smoked. having said that, i was a bit of a renegade and more interested in the social changes of the time than climbing the corporate ladder. as my prime focal point was NOT climbing the corporate ladder they had none of the usual leverage over me and basically left me to my own devices. this was the time when women were ‘burning their bras’ in the streets and change was in the air. i’ve always felt tho that nyc is more open to talent, in whatever form, as the bottom line rules. as long as we are not talking the fashion industry, media, nor any other industry were looks/appearance rule; i believe you could be an odd shade of puce, have three breasts, and eye glasses the thickness of the old coke bottles and do well in ny… if you had the talent, that is.

excuuuuuse me. she lied like a rug. at least 4 times, not because she was tired, she lied and she got caught. this is what you consider ‘lame?’ tuzla is one example of her prevarication, obfuscation, and triangulation. give me an example of hilary’s competence. david geffen, a former friend, was appalled at how easily the clintons lie. this is what you consider o.k?” btw, define academic as you see it.

ah, yes, the brits. it is the same in the isles as it is here, schizophrenic. in europe most of the press are pro obama. check out the germans and the french if you have time.

frank, come on, read about wright; he was a marine. he loves this country… is he radical? sometimes yes. but as a child i sat in a catholic church and listened to the priest warn us about the jews. … they killed christ, ya know. :) does that mean i hate jews or approve of pedophilia? the guy goes off the rails once in awhile but he is revered by his parishioners, respected in the chicago community, and, and, and,… was invited to the clinton white house. this is a typical, republican, ‘guilt by association’ attack. they would say the same thing if he happened to sit next to him on a bus!

yes mam… that would be the post immediately above my first one.

this is so sad. peggy noonan wrote in the wsj weeks ago; she said that the dems did not know what they had in obama, but the repubs sure did. he brought hope and the academic credentials and background to achieve same. hillary beat the **** out of him in pursuit of her trek for power. the ‘elitist’ accusations she hurled totally misconstrued his message and beliefs. she called a fund raiser a “closed door meeting,” for effect. he was asked at the calif fund raiser why he thought he was having trouble with the white voters… was it racism? he said no and went on to elucidate. he said that the people of pa were ‘bitter’ because gov’t wasn’t working for them anymore, they could not depend on the gov’t so they clung to the things they felt secure with, religion, guns, etc. he also felt that they were leery of outsiders. i am originally from pa. everything he said is true. he meant it in the most thoughtful of ways and she turned it into elitism and labeled him for the repubs. not far from where my mother lives someone that comes from another county is referred to as an ouschtlander sp?[coming from away.] btw, that is not a typo… it is county not country. her reticence to answer honestly[obfuscation was one of her majors]when asked if she thought he was a muslim and she knew full well that he was not a muslim. i believe it was steve croft who posed the question for 60 minutes. he had to ask her over and over in order to get a semi direct answer. these are attacks on obama that are in no way reflective of who he is or what he believes in, and yet she persists. her negatives are very high so what does she care? at this point i believe that she is jeopardizing not only obama and the entire democratic party but also, her senate seat and political career.

i don’t believe in ad hominem attacks so i will restrain myself. the above post is pure bs. if you read my other posts on this site it refutes most of what this woman says. this is shrill shill talk.

The real brains behind his campaign is that guy from Wisconsin. “you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.” the ‘brains’ behind the campaign is not out there fielding questions 24/7, he did not develop the philosophy of the campaign, he did not write obama’s books, he did not graduate from harvard at the top of his class, he was not the first black president of the harvard law review, he did not work the streets of chicago as a community organizer… where do you think the ability to run the ‘ground’ campaign, that has been touted as ground breaking, came from?

bkh, i am a female and i don’t understand why you feel that way. i want a woman in the wh but i want a good woman in the wh, one that will make us proud. look at condelleza rice! what a nightmare, helen thomas has nothing good to say about her. she is reputed to be the worst nsa we ever had. she set the woman and black movement back about a century. when we elect a woman to the wh she has to have a decent background, intelligence, an ability to lead, administrative ability, a grasp of the big issues, an ability to act on the world stage, and the respect of her peers. hillary clinton is not a leader, nor an administrator… her campaign is an example of how not to run one. pelosi is a good choice, the senators from kansas and missouri, seem viable. don’t worry, we will have a woman one day-it just has to be the right one. one that will open the door for other women to walk thru.

i think o.c., that, i can not believe that i am thinking this… he is not ‘political’ enough. that may sound insane but, nader, who has done innumerable good things for the country is pretty black and white; he does not work well in the grays and, sadly enough, that is what a good politician is about. he is a technician/analyst, albeit a very good one. his reputation is above reproach and he will fight the special interests to the death, but he is not a leader. we haven’t had many of them lately, good politicians that is. leaders either, now that i think about it. wisdom is also in short supply.

no they did not… their delegates did. marjorie, we have a busines, we are pushovers for the people that work for us, they get away with murder and we allow it. my sig other and i are liberals but common sense must prevail. read in history of mob rule it is not pretty. the people of this country are angry, very angry but, being uneducated, they oft times vote against their own economic interests. the republicans exploit this, in the main, the democrats do not. an analogy, bad but the best i can come up with at the moment. they are electing a new dean at the college, a very large one. they plan to hire from within. the maintenance workers and the custodians of the school outnumber the faculty by one and one half times. everyone can vote…should the majority rule? it is not that they are poor or of a different social class… this is america, but education is important and what we have had for 2 generations is the ‘dumbing down’ of america. it is the first time in our history that the next generations are not more learned then the previous one. i am not proposing the ‘philosopher king’ of the greeks but, for god’s sake… we need an informed, educated electorate in order to assure we do not have another fiasco in the white house.

hmmmm, florida fem. where did you get that little tidbit?

adams vs jfferson-they came from two separate parties-it was a general election. that is like comparing apples and oranges. your version of her history is of the revisionist nature, that is, she did not wage a tough, sincere, truthful campaign. hillary has vocierously attacked obama in the most demeaning of ways. she created mountains out of mole hills and played the race card. she said mccain would make a good president, she would make a good president and POINTEDLY ignored obama. if you know politics… this type of behavior is an anathema. in the political world, you damage your own party with this type of behavior. hillary has NO ability to work across the aisle on any important legislation. in fact she has not brokered any really worthwhile bills while in the senate. check out her congressional record and compare it to obama’s. i’ve posted elsewhere on this site about her ‘toughness’ and i will not go into it again. and by the way, she was fired when on the watergate commitee for, lying, unethical behavior, working in violation of the constitution, and more. she failed to pass her bar when she sat for it in washington dc. she could not pass the universal health care bill when the democrats controlled both the senate and the house and her husband was president. she managed to alienate everyone in the process. you know not of what you speak.

he accused barack obama, on the local npr station, of playing the race card—RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION. and then when asked, feigned indignation. doesn’t anyone else see a pattern forming here? right before every one’s open eyes?