If I hear "No difference between Democrat and Bush", I'm going postal!!!

I'm sick of hearing this crap - all of us know there is a busload of differences between the two. Even Joe Lieberman would be better than Bush in the White House!

I think it's up to all of us here to counter this nonsense - you know any Green who spews that crap really wants four more years of Bush for some crazy ass reason. Maybe they like always being the dissident? Maybe they really wished they could live life like a freedom fighter in some autocratic nation? Maybe they enjoy the feel of a firing squad?

It's taking a great deal of restraint not to reply rather rudely to Michael Moore's e-newsletters. He finally discovered that Democrats are better than Bush? Give me a break. We could have used his help in 2000!

when in the aftermath of the 00 election not one white senator could be found to stand with the congressional black caucus to refuse the elction of george? it can't be that not one of them knew something racist had happened in florida, right?
sometimes it isn't so much that there is no difference -- it's protesting a culture of corruption or decay or whatever you want to call it that pervades any political system in real need of change.
i vote dem -- but man, there is a need for a change. and lieberman would not be that change.

A Lieberman presidency would just be the neocons taking a powder in between wars.

Economic war against the poor would still proceed. And in that time, their disproportionate corporate wealth and power would continue to grow as it did under Clinton.

Stuck on the Democratic brand name? Might as well bust your butt for McCain.

cprise wrote:

A Lieberman presidency would just be the neocons taking a powder in between wars.

And that's still a heck of a lot better than having the Shrub at the helm.

And what the hell is 'Shrub' anyway but a cute and accommodating name for a replacable figurehead. With more experience you'll learn not to fixate on Republican Presidents; they are personalities. Sheesh. Even dittoheads knew to call Clinton "slick willie" instead of "big dog" or "the tree".

Demanding that foreigners turn over their water and energy to your corporations (from whom 'contributions', dividends and revolving doors are produced) or suffer instant ruin at the hands of the intenational banks is imperialist extortion. Over time, it can only lead to war, esp. if the target countries in question find ways to resist.

There is no more "memory hole" (although our press and govt. still act as if that is so). The political classes of the world have access to the Internet and can consistently put issues in historical context. The American government (and its people) will increasingly be held accountable across administrations on all sorts of issues as a pernicious double-standard disappears. Clinton was the last president to widely capitalize on the world's amnesia and good will.

We will never have that opportunity again, and another jovial neoliberal president would meet with icy, short or obsequeous responses and even outright agression from a world that will see only another resource-grabber.

With water and fuel shortages looming-- a thousand times no!

Don't wait for America to get liberalism beaten into its head again.

The difference is that Bush will continue to appoint extreme right wingers to the courts (like Pickering). Even Lieberman wouldn't dare do that. If Bush got another term, he might be able to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing idealogues like Scalia and then we sould be doomer for the foreseeable future. Democrats, even Clintonian Democrats or DLC Democrats or whatever you wish to call them would at least try to put decent people in the courts, not right-wingers and maybe the Bill of Rights could be saved. That is, in a nutshell, why there is an HUGE difference between Democrats, any Democrat and Bush.

And they still become more conservative under DLC Dems, just not as quickly. They have based their positions on what the Republicans are doing, and the Repubs take advantage of that.

Add to that the NAFTA-type supranational court systems serving only corporations, capable of striking down a country's local or national laws for the sake of the corporate plaintiff's profits.

Our own Bill-Of-Rights court system is to assume the role of mopping up the resulting human refuse who, incidentally Have A Friend At McDonalds where they can get a Coke And A Smile.

American neoliberals externalize the means of production (yeah, all our "stuff") to foreign populations where the idea of public accountability or law is meaningless. People abroad slave under terrible conditions to keep us, the politically powerful U.S. consumers, satisfied and stupid. The bosses are only legally accountable to a population that doesn't labor for them anymore, and even that is too unfortable for them... so they created a new system of courts made just for them.

And we can thank Clinton and the DLC Democrats.

The conservatives must be attacked for what they've done and the ideology they use to rationalize it. They must be beaten back until they get a clue about honest humility.

There are no "pure" politicians who fit your idea of what they should be. Those people generally don't get elected or even run. Politics is messy; both parties have problems but I most definitely will side with almost any Democrat over almost any Republican any time. We have to deal with the real world, not some utopian ideal which will never happen. No candidate shares all of my personal beliefs. I realize that most of the things that I wish to happen will not happen in my lifetime. But the Democratic candidates are all good people; I believe that they all would do quite an adequate job at least. Yes some are more ideologically "pure" than others, some are too conservative for me but that is the way it is sometimes. It is most important to remove Bush from office above all else.

...and just say "tuff, that's just the way it is."

Your response is like a broken recording from 1988. Someone says we need to do the right thing because people are tired of ideologues, and the response is 'we can't succeed with a "utopian ideal"'.

If you read my post, you would have understood that my position was against politicians who are ideologically pure. We have major systemic problems now, and the shared economic ideology of the neocons and neoliberals is going to wreck us if it isn't exposed.

NAFTA was conceived by conservatives (New Democrats and Republicans) who are after a utopian goal of perfect freedom for corporations. They believe Free Markets can conquer any problem, and eventually everything should be turned over to corporations.

They are, of course, as wrong as the Soviets were.

I support Dean because he balanced budgets and is responsible, but is against NAFTA and similar treaties that reinforce corporations and their profit motive against all else; They must be changed or slowly dismantled. He is also against the monopolies that media corporations are establishing in many local markets; Dean is for breaking up huge media conglomerates (the recent relaxation of media regulation is justified by ideological purity). We need to stop finding excuses for making war and dominating the Earth, and put the hawks (war-purists) in their place. I don't like Dean's stance on guns and capital punishment, but those issues are not systemic and won't destroy our decision-making and economic ability like the others will.

Bush is not the problem; he is a scarecrow for liberals. His corporate and religious functionaries are the problem, and he is their servant.. not their boss.

And I have never seen an adequate answer. WHY did the top Dems just roll over at that time?? No, I do not think they are the same as bush, what nonsense. But still, I suppose I will always wonder why they gave up so easily; it was almost like they were relieved.

But now: should a similar situation develop this November, will it be the same??

...his populist line in the campaign. In this case populist = against corporate control. Lieberman even started chirping to the media during the USSC case that he thought Bush was the real victor; a complete stab in the back that the media just played on the air without turning it into an issue.

The party was still clutching mightily to revolving doors and corporate funding/welfare, and so was looking askance through this whole affair.


Also... there was something reactionary going on in high places. I remember 1999 as the year Hollywood wiped black actors from its primetime lineups.

was not more forceful during the Florida debacle in 2000.

I also wondered why the Democrats were so docile.

but they are nowhere near Bush

Lesser of two evils? Maybe. But still evil lite - better than full evil.

They converted to Euros on the Bush/Blair watch.

You are using simplistic language to distinguish between the tail of and its rear.

originally free trade was a democrat policy idea and pushed hard by democrats -- but it didn't take long for hard evidence to emerge that policy needed to be rethought -- but who helped pushed it through in the 90's? clinton.
no, the democratic party isn't perfect -- and i'm not looking for perfection. but to say that the same corporatists who have death grip on the republicans don't have one on the democrats doesn't have their street smarts siren going off.
something is fishy in denmark -- what i will agree is that bush has to go.
if i lived in an ideal world i'd vote socialist -- but do not ask me to extol the virtues of a sick institution.

What's the recourse? Did they want to go back and hold the election over again? Did they want to automatically count the votes of people who didn't vote (because they weren't allowed to) in Gore's favor? The voter purge was a wrong without recourse. Purged voters could have sued for damages, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election.

In the matter of the mechanical undercount, the Florida Supreme Court offered the correct solution - a statewide manual recount. But the U.S. Supreme Court shot it down. The law and logic of the majority's ruling in Bush v. Gore was disgraceful and corrupt, but that doesn't change the fact that they had the final say. Short of armed rebellion, there was no further recourse.

Stop worrying about Lieberman. He hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of being the nominee.

ask them about rumsfeld showing the oil maps and divvying up oil?

ask them about shrub being fiscally irresponsible by spending much more than clinton -- outside of incr in defense?

are the dems blocking the 911 investigation?

But Lieberman is not my first choice.

to a number of the incumbent's positions, and many of the current regime's policies have been very skillfully reworded.

to spurn the Democratic because their guy wasn't nominated. Yeah, they are going to spread the meme "based on principle." The damage done by Nader was not that "he took votes away from Gore" but that he and his followers discouraged voters with the: "if you have to choose the lesser of two evils, then you get evil" and of course, "there is no difference between Bush and Gore." It was the voters who did not bother to show up to the polls that made the difference--in my opinion.

The Democrats have been piss-poor in responding to the Greens.

There is nothing the Dems have tried to copy or co-opt from the Greens even at the state level. But there is a wealth of new ideas. So for now it's chip, chip, chip away. There will be steady growth and near-zero disillusionment for their base for some time.

The Greens are offering the answer to the Dems continued existence to them on a platter. No one in Washington recognizes it yet; to them it looks like something quite homely while Dems are busy clutching at gold and diamonds.

If the Democrats would just adopt the Green platform, we too could get 2% of the popular vote and 0% of the electoral vote in the next presidential election. What a Deal!

No.

Why would the Dems adopt anywhere near the whole Green platform?

"The Greens are offering the answer to the Dems continued existence to them on a platter."

Now from that statement it would appear that you think the Democrats should adopt Green positions holus-bolus. Or are you saying that the Democrats should pick a few small things off that platter and have only a small part of the answer to their continued existence?

What are you suggesting? Please make it clear. Do you believe that only a small amount of the Green platform has merit, or do you believe that Democrats should adopt most or all of it?

is blind and deaf and deserves to have Bush for president.

Anyone who cannot think of the world first (or at all) when picking the "world leader" deserves to have Bush as President.

And you have to admit, the world has not only built up a resistence against Bush, but has made a sharp about face away from what they call neoLIBERALISM.

A DLC democrat will not make things any better. Add one of them to the kind of congress we have now, and you've got the same shit with a better personality at the helm. Take Clark, for instance: They will see a Tony Blair in a military uniform.

That won't fly.

cprise wrote:

A DLC democrat will not make things any better.

There's a fairly good chance that a DLC democrat won't make things any worse either. It is virtually certain that a Bush administration will make things worse (any uncertainty regarding this is with regard to degree of harm rather than whether harm will be caused or not).

cprise wrote:

Add one of them to the kind of congress we have now,

At best we'll have gridlock. That doesn't sound so bad right about now.

cprise wrote:

and you've got the same shit with a better personality at the helm. Take Clark, for instance: They will see a Tony Blair in a military uniform.

Folk outside the U.S. liked Clinton well enough. When expectations are being set by our current White House resident, almost anyone else gets to look good in comparison, believe me.

I was trying to compose a response to make him shut up and go away, but you tok care of it.

We will not get another 'Clinton' for perhaps a generation. Latin America, EU and Russia would call his bluff. Esp. Brazil, Argentina and Mexico-- they're worried about suits invading, not military uniforms. The Cancun fall-out did not occur because a Republican is in office. They use the same word to describe the global economics of Clinton, Blair or Bush: Neoliberal.

Neocon (and neoliberal) ideology must be gutted in the eyes of the public; They must lose face, seem foolish and self-deluded (which often they are) so their ideas lose currency. Widespread public mistrust of what is a very dangerous cabal is the only way you can immobilize them without draconian measures.

Not until you do that will both liberal and conservative toolboxes be open for us to use to the nation's benefit.

How? Demonstrate their failures with all the voices and "echo-chamber" you can muster while your candidate questions the sanity of Market Religion and the economic extremism of the Republicans. Like "bleeding-heart liberals" of 20 years ago, these conservatives follow an inevitable pattern of self-delusion; They may tell themselves and others their intentions are good, but we've just seen how narrow vision for the role of goverment leaves it bereft of any real sense of responsibility or reality. Some of it is the Reagan blather in reverse; He had a point about individual responsibility and now we must push the point of collective responsibility before we go over the edge. The public will get it, and there isn't even much to say to make the point: find a label for the Wasington conservatives ("bleeding-nose conservatives" or something that suggests their motives) that groups like MoveOn and some clueful pundits can use with their talking points.

Win the election on a focused fiscal/jobs policy, security and healthcare. The vision supplied here holds rich contrasts for Bush's many failures.

The opponent IS failing, for reasons that seem obvious to us. Their 'Atlas' will be trembling mightily by the time November comes around in trying to prevent economic collapse ; job loss and a part-time, Walmart future are not acceptable. Now is not the time to play Japanese baseball with them!

cprise wrote:

The Cancun fall-out did not occur because a Republican is in office. They use the same word to describe the global economics of Clinton, Blair or Bush: Neoliberal.

I'm sorry, you seem to be attempting to tell us there's no difference between Bush and the Democrats over and over again and it's just false (even for the worst, like Lieberman).

Have you learned nothing from the Green Party/Nader debacle in 2000? I have no problem with people making mistakes. I have a problem with people making the same mistake over and over again.

Do you really think the Bush administration has done its worst already? Or are you actually hoping, instead, that Bush will get elected so his misadministration can teach the masses a lesson (presumably well deserved, in your opinion) to cause them to revolt and elect a utopic progressive government more to your liking in 2008? Is this one of those "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" kinds of situations to you?

Either way, you're insane. I have a problem with this administration taking us into paths of no return. I have the foresight to see that things might get so screwed up by 2008 that fixing them properly, at that point in time, might become extraordinarily difficult (think, for instance, United States Supreme Court) and painful (if not impossible). I have the foresight to realize that, if people can be misled or coerced in 2004, they can be misled or coerced again in 2008. The present situation must be fixed or ameliorated as soon as possible. Waiting it out is simply not an option.

No, nobody's "stuck on the Democratic brand name" (and yes, McCain would be better than Bush --not that that's too terribly relevant since he's not even an option); but, right now, the only viable opposition bears the Democratic brand name (when and if we come to the point of not facing another Bush like threat and there are other viable alternatives, then you can go and play your ideological purity games all you want --I might even join you). You'll just have to live with this unpleasant reality because if you're so stuck on the ideological purity of the opposition candidate you are willing to support as you seem to be, you might as well bust your butt for George W. Bush (I'm sure they could use you to call people on the phone for fundraising or something). That's how it is, like it or not we'll have to take whatever we can get (which, by the way, is extraordinarily unlikely to be Lieberman).

"Have you learned nothing from the Green Party/Nader debacle in 2000?"

I supported Gore in 2000, and saw how the mega-corporate media that Clinton/Gore created destroyed our candidate with TRIVIA!

All the while, we have Lieberman growling at Gore that he needs to quit his populist theme. Lieberman tries to assume the role of Gore's handler! And while the FL vote USSC case was still running, Lieberman told the press that Bush won the vote anyway and he couldn't see why Gore was still pressing on with the case.

That was sabotage.

And what is it you say we cannot afford? Actual representative democracy? I say it is the DLC party line: They lost, lost, lost in 2002.

I'm sure without realizing it, what you are trying to push on me is US political fundamentalism: "Are they exactly the same? YES or NO??!" It's like being asked "Did you partake in your Pagan friend's Satanic rites? YES or NO???"

They are questions from constipated minds. And its a sign that the interrogator can't justify their position. You answer such a one by addressing the flawed premise that it rests on, and maybe you won't be accused of dodging the question.

I KNOW that Coke has a bit less sugar than Pepsi. That doesn't mean that Coke machines are at all suitable for the hallways of public schools. They are not a good compromise toward better nutrition and education for disadvantaged kids.

Superintendant: "Yes, soda in the schools is not what we want. But you're telling me that Pepsi and Coke are the same and I know you're full of BS! We won't make it to next year unless we have the kids' pocketchange ....err.... Coke ad revenues now!"

Any other advanced country would take that fetid, spinning, spineless SOB rationalizer by the collar and set them out the doorway where they can begin their journey to the unemployment queue.



You think Bush is sooooo horrible for Iraq and wanting its oil? Feh! He's terrible and terribly straightforward.

The neoliberals have been after the 3rd world's water, demanding outright ownership and getting it.

How would Wesley Clark fix that problem? I'll tell you how: He'll take the answer from his corporate lobbyists bible. He'll declare that Iraq's new democratic (but corporate-funded) government politicos have control over oil and other contracts. Meanwhile, he and Blair will keep after water interests, which is off the US political map just like oil was until a war was started for it. Divestiture is not a possibility (Clark doesn't even accept the idea of breaking up US media monopolies). Their justification, as always and just like Clinton with NAFTA and Bush with FTAA and Iraq, is 'freedom'. Property must be a legal absolute, and the potential for those with international reach to profit at a whim must hold sway over democratically enacted local laws which do not recognize this goal.


You can't tell you're falling toward a political/economic singularity until after you pass the event horizon and the hole tears you to ribbons. Only outside observers can tell what's happening to you before its too late.

'Neoliberal' is on the lips of every foreign politico now.

In the international community, particularly Europe, where we need all the respect we can get as of late.

They will unload our dollars and deploy their new military while they are yukking it up with DLCer* on camera. (EU is not afraid of being invaded by us, but they fear having the world fall to pieces and taking them down.)

They are already doing it with Bush, and it's largely over trade and economics now.

The Netherlands are an exeption, where they have a far right government, now. I'm just one European, and I'm more afraid of Clark than of Bush.
I don't need that Mussolini. It's as if after Bush, the Pentagon installs a military dictatorship in the USA.
Not to mention, that the democrats let it happen, that a Republican and Bush-Nixon-Reagan follower takes over their party. It's not about a guy, who did vote for Reagan twenty years, ago. It's about a guy, who's pissed off, cause Bush didn't offer him he position within the Bush-Administration, he expected. And now, he's taking over the democrats. And these masochistic democrats might let it happen...
Dirk

Dirk39 wrote:

I don't need that Mussolini.

Geez, because someone has recently recently worn a uniform he's a potential military dictator? Don't be ridiculous! Wesley Clark is no more a Mussolini than Eisenhower was a Mussolini (not that I'm suggesting he's an Eisenhower either).

Dirk39 wrote:

Not to mention, that the democrats let it happen, that a Republican and Bush-Nixon-Reagan follower takes over their party.

If it matters to you, he's never been officially registered as a Republican, to my knowledge (despite allegations to the contrary).

Dirk39 wrote:

It's not about a guy, who did vote for Reagan twenty years, ago.

The ugly reality is that a lot of people voted for reagan 24 years ago (many of them Democrats, some of whom probably also voted for John F. Kennedy --thus the expression "Reagan Democrats").

Dirk39 wrote:

It's about a guy, who's pissed off, cause Bush didn't offer him he position within the Bush-Administration, he expected.

So he's doing it out of spite in order to take over the world? I think you're confusing him with someone else. Any reason why I should opt to believe you?

Dirk39 wrote:

And these masochistic democrats might let it happen...

We'll see. If he truly offers the best chance to defeat George Bush, I for one, will be happy to have it happen.

Clark is still a republican taking orders - what else is a four star general about? - from the republicans to split the democratic party.
It's just so confusing. Many Europeans think, the USA would be less democratic than most european countries and mainly they point to the two party system.
Plain wrong.
To give you one example. When the social democratic party in Germany decides for their candidate. There isn't any discussion. There is a decision from above, and if you don't agree, you serve the competitors.
There isn't anything going on comparable to what's going on in the USA.
No Kucinich. No debatte about different options.

But an SOA kind of guy, who was involved in nearly every dirty operation the USA commited against other countries and people within the last decades, a war criminal like Clark, a guy, involved in this dirty war against former Yuguslavia becomes a canididate for the democrats against Bush. Sorry, this is a nightmare.
I just have to look at his campaign: Leader, leader, leader, heroic, patriotic. All these nazi words and images. These uniforms and this black colour. These empty words and statements, written by some PR agencies. Don't do this to me.
No, please America, don't do this.
Dirk

they simply aren't trying to hard are they? Any of the candidates are far better than Bush, even the RW shill Lieberman.

-

... is pretty prominant on the Indymedia sites. The whole basis is that both parties are beholden to the corporations. All other social issues are moot. They consider DUers to be nazis. In fact, they see Democratic liberals as being worse that the R's simply because the R's boldly proclaim who they are while the Democrats just pretend to be progressives while all the time they're supporting politicians who are funded by corporations and special interests.

I had one guy on Indymedia (an anarchist) tell me that the right-wing wants the corporations to run his life and the left-wing wants big government to run his life, so what's the difference, they both eventually want the same thing, that is to tell others what they can and can't do.

So let's see ...

If the Democrats and Republicans get police to exclude the Green candidate from attending debates again, I'm going postal.

If Dems offer a blank check to Bush to make war again, I'm going postal.

If "bipartisanship" continues to trump basic values, I'm going postal.

If support for the World Bank, IMF, GATT, WTO, and other institutions of economic globalization is more important to Dems than labor rights and helping the poor, I'm going postal.

So yeah, you go postal over some campaign hyperbole and use that as a ticket to more phony righteous indignation, and while you're letting a multifacted electoral fraud off the hook, I'll go postal over actual issues.

At the end of the day, we'll double check that moral authority.

"...you know any Green who spews that crap really wants four more years of Bush for some crazy ass reason..."

Keep trying. Eventually you'll get something right.

And they're not disruptors? I'm a former Green and at this point, I'll take the lesser of two evils. :-)

Most people I know feel the same way.

If there is no difference, why are all these rich people spending $2000 each - and possibly more if they give to PACs to run issue ads - to support Bush*'s re-election effort? Wouldn't they just let it go, and either way they win?

The wealthy elites have factions, too. One faction doesn't care, another wants Smirk, another wants Dean, another Clark and so on.

The one thing we know for sure is that none of the elite factions want Kucinich.

Sure there are rich liberals. Steve Jobs, George Soros...I don't want to think of more this early in the morning. But I'm not unaware of wealthy donors.

But if you want to look at any of our candidates, and how few their donors are, and how big their average donation is compared to that of Bush*, I think you'll find that a lot of people that have a lot of money seem to have a pretty big interest in electing Bush*. The support is so overwhelmingly lopsided that you can't just say that they're indistinguishable factions. It's unbelievable that a presidential campaign would want to spend as much money as they do.

I am in the Green Party. I will support and vote for the Dem candidate. America cannot survive 4 years & 10 months more of Neo Fascist rule.There are only these candidates still viable: Dean, Clark, Kerry, Edwards. Any of them are qualified to be the next Pres.

Snappy wrote:

There are only these candidates still viable: Dean, Clark, Kerry, Edwards.

Since you didn't mention Lieberman, I'll say that, in my opinion, there are no dwarves in that list (note that this is not some attempt on my part to offend dwarves but, rather, a reference to what the "liberal media" liked to call the contenders for the Democratic nomination a few election cycles back --was it 1988?).

What most people who make this arguement including myself are saying is the differences in the parties are not the most important things to me. For example, social security and abortion are not that important to me. I am a young married male athiest with plenty of money, why would i concern myself with them. I have huge problems with the bush administration in that it runs from beehind the iron curtain of secrecy and violates any law it sees fit. The last democratic president however wasn't any better but in different ways. While I was inthe military the commander in chief committed adultry, a crime i at the time could have been given 10 years in prison for. He also signed into being the DMCA and Sonny Bonno(mickey mouse bill) quite possibly the worst peices of legislation ever. Large monopolistic corperations and conglomerates such as the RIAA and Microsoft contribute greatly to both parties so that any peice of legislation they wish gets passed to law. In a nutt shell, the two party system pulls both parties close together with a few major issues which are not important to a large percentage of the population. And since ones issues to those people including me are not and likely will never be addressed, why vote? I'll vote against bush this term, I just don't see any democratic knight in armour so make sure he doesn't get too comfy in the white house.

me

exactly what repubs do.

... as it is the party and the two party system.

First of all, any future Democratic President who might have to work with the current Congress is probably not going to be able to fill all of his campaign promises.

Secondly, it seems that Democrats in Congress have rolled over for any number of Bush initiatives of questionable merit. Even when you are in the minority, I think you ought to take a principled stand.

The Democratic candidates are saying a lot of good things now and any one of them would be better than Bush in the White House, but honestly... without Congressional backing, exactly how much does anyone really think they are going to be able to turn around?

;-)

eom

n/t

I wonder how all this shit happened.

In a fit of frustration I have many times this year not on this
board--in privacy of my homesid there is no a dimes worth differnce betwween the two parties.

Since Bush is a Radical Republican you cnnot compare to him I believe.

There are conservative Democrats who have enough pwer that their vot
dwith the Republicans keep things muddled for the Democratic Pary.
Two examples Meidar and TaxCut Votes--Democrats passed these bills for Bush. My compalint is with the Party not specific leaders. I am sure I am not the only person who feels this way.

Was listening to their local political show on the way into work tonight and they had a self-identified Green pulling out the tired "there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, blah, blah, blah."
I thought I had entered some weird "Philadelphia Experiment" time warp thing back to the year 2000.
Can anybody listen to Edward's "Two Americas" speech last night and dare to belch out that tired old cliche?!