To anyone paying at leat a little attention, he makes it clear that the GOP is all about massive government, be it to manipulate the economy or bomb democracy into Third World countries.

Of course that won’t stop the Republicans from claiming to be for limited government, while advocating spying on U.S. citizens, secret court proceedings, economic steroids and the most powerful government hammer of all: war without end.

But at least for a time, as long as Ron Paul is there in the debates to call them on it, the Republicans can’t triangulate on what’s supposed to be their ideological touchstone.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/hayes

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/02/04/080204ta_talk_mcmanus

“Really I don’t give a shit. Let all the shit fly.”

Ah, makes sense. Is the bridge you live under along the QEW?

Really I don’t give a shit. Let all the shit fly.

How on earth do you derive from that article that Obama is “tied” to Saddam? Because Obama knows somebody who knows somebody who is tied to Saddam? Cockburn himself doesn’t make this claim, although he’s happy to make the innuendo.

Its not ideological pourity. It is opposition to the prevailing order, not simply liberalism. Alex’s column in the recent print edition of the Nation says it all. There is no Left in America because most liberals support the continued existence of American Empire and capitalism.

I don’t.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26929

Yep, before long we’ll learn that the two year old Barack was playing at the Grassy Knoll in Dallas!

Richardson has to be thinking about his own future. if he was fully satisfied being New Mexico’s governor, he wouldn’t have run for president. My sense is that he would like to endorse Obama, but is spooked by the spectre of Clintonian revenge. And he might believe that Hillary is going to win. His endorsement of Obama, though, particularly if it occurred today, could be very helpful in the southwest. An endorsement would help Hillary as well, but would not have quite the same impact, I think.

I think Edwards will sit and watch for a while.

Alas, instad we got a fairly substantive discussion of the candidate’s views on a wide variety of issues and at a level deeper than 90 second bites. So sad!

But, as I wrote elsewhere last night, while neither can be said to have “won” the debate there was a lose and it was John McCain and the whole GOP stable that put on that verbal bloviator’s fest the night before in Simi Vaalley.

The difference between the two camps was so pronounced that anyone looking for a new Pres could instantly dismiss the sad old and grumpy old men of the Elephant’s graveyard!

Course there was a third force seen yesterday. On “Democracy Now” Ralph Nader told Amy Goodman why he was considering runing again. To energize the youn gs and promote progressive ideas. Funny but the young seem to be rather engaged this year by that guy with the funny name from Chicago. At least he seems to have roused them more in the past year than Ralphie had in the last twenty. And raise the progressive flag? Seems to me that lawyer from North Carolina did a fair job of that and the two remaining Dem candidates were all over themselves claiming his mantle last night.

You want drama? there it was. Ralph as King Lear!

For McCain ‘I am ready to lead’ and ‘I was the first to support the Surge’.

For Obama ”I am the agent of Change’ and ‘I was the first to oppose the War’

For Hilary ‘I have the experience’, especially when she really don’t have much.

I wonder if they realize there are some 50 cable channels, 500 newspapers, and 50,000 blogs covering their campaign stops? We got it already!