Of the 3 choices for president currently available, only Obama shows the potential, not the guarantee, for peace, prosperity & social justice. McC is far too fond of war. Billary have proven repeatedly their allegiance is to Wall St 1st, above the interests of the vast majority of the US populace.

Posted by sloper at 03/21/2008

Sad that even The Nation is going with the bland idea of finding an "enlightened" president with vague ideas of peace and prosperity instead of a solid New Deal idea. Abandon the "great man theory", please. Krugman is right. Let's push for the advancement of FDR's national health care plan. When the people see government that works, they will then "enlighten" their own heads about what can be accomplished.

Posted by Montana Maven at 03/21/2008

Ancient scripture advises: Without a vision, the people will perish. It is not just about policies or "better" legislation. Rather, it is precisely about our nation's desperate need for a vision that fits the 21st century. That new vision must be oriented to "all of us getting there together" -- or else it's just more of the same... bad legislation and failed policies that do nothing but allow for the concentration of ever more privilege and power into fewer and fewer hands. The need for vision and leadership must not be an excuse, though, for possibilitarians and activists to be any less creative in responding to violence, power, and injustice. Leaders need the leadership of activists.

Posted by rumitime at 03/21/2008

My vote is for all five. And, I'd like to see it start right away. However, I don't see one person running for president who is up to the task of doing it.

Posted by chendri887 at 03/22/2008

I need more categories, something a little less Socialist.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/22/2008

I don't sense any urgency by the current administration nor any of the candidates to address the unmaking of the strength of this nation and its influence in the world today. All of the ideas being put forth merely delay the day of fiscal reckoning.

How on earth has a conservative republican administration managed to blunder so badly all in the name of greed? Or better yet, since greed by this party has led us to precarious economic conditions in the past, why has there been so little challenge of these fools that have brought us to this place in time? As I understand it, we are here now because banks, mortgage brokers, investment houses around the world have been able to create new and unregulated securities that included portions of subprime mortgages in packages with higher rated securities, etc., so that the newly created CDO's were rated on the basis of the average rating of all and sold to investors, and held by investment firms with no one really knowing what was included and if it was really worth the cost. As the housing boom burst, and foreclosures surged, there is still the need of an accounting as to who owns what piece of what mortgage, etc. All of this could only have led to such muddled market and now, to find a way out of this, which never would have occurred if someone had kept an open eye on the scammers that created this nightmare. I'm all for a free market, but it also must be a transparent market accountable to all participants.

Posted by Alicia127 at 03/22/2008

Every few years, the thieves that rule Wall Street find a new and novel way to screw the little guy in the market. It can be absurd margin requirements, junk bonds, sub prime mortgages, dishonest accounting firms, dishonest securities rating services, dishonest financial analysts, dishonest fund managers, day trading schemes, portfolio churners and a host of unethical government and brokerage house practices. They got you in 1987, in 2000, and now again in 2008. And it will continue to happen until all the little schmucks realize who runs the show and how they do it.

Posted by bean22 at 03/22/2008

Ida know.... it didn't work for the USSR ...... but hey, maybe we can get it right .....

Posted by bleedingheart at 03/23/2008

Right bleedingheart, regulating the financial markets and making health care available = Soviet totalitarianism, an equation that would make WFBuckley proud!! Sanity isn't really obligatory on the right these days though, is it?

Posted by tnathant at 03/24/2008

I would have checked "All of the Above" had that been the choice given.

I agree, Obama is the only one who comes close to being an "enlightened president."

Posted by cbertel at 03/25/2008

To Hell with "Social Justice"

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/25/2008

I fervently hope we get a Democrat president, but the way they have run so far has made it easier for the Republicans. Why the rules about when to vote? Why start the whole process so early in the game? Why did Hillary and Obama have to attack each other, instead of pointing up the failings of Bush, and on and on. The fact is the Democrats had a very good lineup of good men (and a woman) from the start. A pity they all had to run the same time. Ideally, I'd like to see both a woman and a black as president. It would be best if Hillary won now and Obama ran and won in 2012. He'd have more credibility then and more experience.

Joe Rizzo, RenaissancePrince.blogspot. com

Posted by Joseph Rizz at 03/25/2008

If Social Secrity gives you only a $300 death benifit that won't even cover the cost of disposing your remains, what kind of health benifit would you get?

Posted by Rese at 03/26/2008

I assumed the final choice was a sort of de facto "all of the above".

A note to Joe Rizzo, I don't mean to offend but unless Hillary gets assassinated or impeached during her first term (both, admittedly, possible) or decides she really didn't want the job after all (highly unlikely - unless God needs a replacement in 2012) I think Obama would be expected to wait until 2016. I'm afraid that's a little long for most of us. I'm also afraid that by the end of another Clinton presidency the Republicans would be demanding (much like Hillary does now) their turn.

Posted by jackburgess at 03/26/2008

To TNATHANT

Do you have a rant against corporate welfare or is that an acceptable consequence in your free market concept like poisonous smog from coal plants and pharmaceuticals in our drinking water? Our hearts aren't bleeding, our eyes and ears are.

I think most of us in America are actually opposed to our tax dollars being used for $30B bailouts of free-market failures. I think most of us would happily accept increasing the redistribution of money from the wealthiest 1% to programs designed to offer all Americans the opportunity to be all they can. Mostly though, I think we believe we can work this out before we hate your kind as much as you hate ours and get all Sunni and Shia in our own backyard.

It is time we as a nation stop feeding this pipedream of becoming a fat, rich bastard at all costs that you and your kind share and set our focus on the realities of our overcrowded planet.

Posted by jackburgess at 03/26/2008

Sorry TNATHANT I should read posts more carefully before I start ranting like I have a 5AM cable news show. Sorry again.

Posted by jackburgess at 03/26/2008

So, let me see if I have this straight-

1). oppressive, confiscatory tax rates that remove the incentive of bringing new products and technological advances to the market 2). rationed, second rate health care consistent what the residents of countries like England, Canada, and Cuba suffer through 3). allow unions to continue to make ridiculous, unsustainable demands of employers (in the Ford/GM frame) 4). elect a leader who is "enlightened" enough to see that socialism really IS the answer, you just need to have the right people running the system

...did I get everything?

Posted by dealwithit at 03/27/2008