That's what I want to know.

The revolution may or may not be televised, but a movement can't be built on television ads.

If you are a human being who cares about other human beings, about an informed society, about democracy, freedom, justice, progress, peace, prosperity, and the American way, then giving money to commercial television is giving money to the enemy.

Some numbers from http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=653 - "With no other candidate appearances in the district, paid media is how most voters are “meeting” them," quoting http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=718981

Al Giordano has no patience for spleen spilled over shared words:

The shrieking accusation out of the Clinton camp that Obama somehow “plagiarized” some words about words from (his good friend) Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick Saturday night demonstrates just how stuck in the last century that entire team has been especially since the boys hounded Patty Solis Doyle out of the war room.  [...]

The original, watched some 10 million times:

Al Giordano calls his political identification anarcho-syndicalist. He's considers media the establishment's establishment and the place where we have to breach the palace walls and create democracy first. The perspective he supports at http://narconews.com/ is change from below, not from changing government.

And he's been backing near corporate-apologist Obama since this campaign started.

Children, although surveys show they have greater support for things like peace, democracy, and freedom than adults, are denied the right to vote on the excuse "They're too young to understand." Excuse me? Um... no. Maybe you're too old to understand, but do we deny the right to vote to 90-year-old right wing conservatives? No. Do we deny the right to vote to 15-year-old left wing liberals? Yes. Is this fair? No. Absolutely not. It is a desperate attempt to hold on to power by the ruling class, an effort that will ultimately fail.

As I've written about presidential politics more than I care to admit, I need to go on the record here, before the sane people willing to run for president lose their first primaries.

Electing a president or getting elected to the presidency are not the ways to bring about long-term, positive change.

Core goal: the most power possible for all people over their own lives.

Trying to put one person in power is not the way to do that.

So borrowing from the Zapatistas, we need a politics from below: a movement that builds power for everyone.

Can't believe Charlie Savage didn't ask Dennis Kucinich the same questions about presidential powers that he asked most every other candidate. Fortunately, he did ask Chris Dodd and the summary suggested other Democrats largely replied along the same lines, which is very important. Several Republicans did not reply, and our dear ex-governor Mitt Romney claimed privileges that would shame tyrants.

Kenneth Anderson on the Brad Blog:

A few preliminary points:

• No government or other entity should be developing or using nuclear weapons or nuclear power (let alone subsidizing it).
• Given U.S. government stockpiling and development of nuclear weapons and support of nuclear power, stopping Iran from doing nuclear research is not a legitimate policy.
• The U.S. invasion of Iraq is wrong and horrible and terrible on so many levels, primarily destroying people's lives in Iraq and in the United States (and places affected by global warming) that there is simply nothing that could justify it.

That said, (and surely this claim must be being made constantly in reactionary media that I don't receive?) if Iran really did stop their nuclear research program in 2003 (and not, as is probably the case, well before), could the insane invasion of its neighbor by nuclear-armed US have played into the decision?