Its time to vote!

I know any of the candidates will be a huge step forward from the Bush Administration. I hope everyone can look at each Democratic candidate on the issues that are important to them in an intelligent manner (meaning excluding race and gender) and make up their own minds. Its easy to do, each candidate has a website with their position on the issues. You can look at a biography of the candidates on wikipedia.

I’m voting for Obama, it comes down to his decision making, asking for advice from all, then making a decision, a decision that has as much idealism in it as possible, but enough political practicality as to be successful.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DON'T LET EDWARDS BE THE NADER OF THESE ELECTIONS FOR OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!

Its time to vote! I’m voting for Obama, it comes down to his decision making, asking for advice from all, then making a decision, a decision that has as much idealism in it as possible, but enough political practicality as to be successful.

Of course all politicians crave power and that power must be balanced with idealism. When a politician loses all idealism they become corrupt taking money and increasing their personal power dramatically. In this Democratic race, I'm not aware of any of the candidates being this bad. However Clinton's record is more substantially mired in controversy, ranging from turning $1000 into $100000 in cattle futures, to Whitewater, to being found guilty of lying while she was at the White House, to large earmarks for private developers who then turned around and financed and campaigned for her, to falsely attacking Obama as a pro-life candidate for voting "present" in New Hampshire. She is firmly entrenched in the establishment, admirably a tough politician who knows everything there is to know about our political system. The Republicans are so sure she is the next Democratic nominee that there's even a movie set to release. The Clintons represent the establishment, Obama and Edwards represent new leadership. http://www.hillarythemovie.com/

I hope everyone can look at each Democratic candidate on the issues that are important to them in an intelligent manner (meaning excluding race and gender) and make up their own minds. Its easy to do, each candidate has a website with their position on the issues. You can look at a biography of the candidates on wikipedia as well.

Yesterday, Bill Clinton said that Hillary Clinton is the Insurgent and Obama represents the Establishment. Yes, he actually said that yesterday. Do you think the Clintons are the Insurgents in this presidential election or part of the established Democratic Party? I think that the Clintons are part of the establishment.

The establishment at large, including the mass media, wants to see a Clinton versus McCain presidential election. The reason is that both of these candidates are part of the establishment as well. This means
business as usual, the business of making money, not for you or me, but for themselves.

The establishment has been trying influence these elections on many levels, not just through the media.

The Democratic Party on a national level has super delegates consisting of high level Democrats who are part of the Democratic Party establishment who get an entire delegate vote all to themselves. Its very unfair, anti-democratic, yet not against the law. According to CNN right now, Hillary Clinton has 166 super delegates committed to her, more than twice her nearest competitor, Obama. Bill Clinton
himself is a super delegate.

In a similar manner, at the local level in Nevada the Democratic Party establishment weighted the new created casino caucuses to help the establishment nominee, in this case Clinton, win. Unfortunately for
her this backfired when the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama. The establishment quickly filed suit through their proxy the teachers union. Bill Clinton has spoken out against the casino caucuses as
being unfair. I agree. it is very unfair, anti-democratic, but it is not against the law.

I would love to ask the Clintons, "Now that you know super delegates aren't fair just like the casino caucuses, will Bill give up his super delegate vote?" or will both of you remain firmly entrenched in the
establishment, playing politics, business as usual, making money, not for you or me, but for the establishment.

Yesterday, Bill Clinton said that Hillary Clinton is the Insurgent and Obama represents the Establishment. Yes, he actually said that yesterday. Do you think the Clintons are the Insurgents in this presidential election or part of the established Democratic Party? I suspect that the Clintons are part of the establishment.

The establishment at large, including the mass media, wants to see a Clinton versus McCain presidential election. The reason is that both of these candidates are part of the establishment as well. This means
business as usual, the business of making money, not for you or me, but for themselves.

The establishment has been trying influence these elections on many levels, not just through the media.

The Democratic Party on a national level has super delegates consisting of high level Democrats who are part of the Democratic Party establishment who get an entire delegate vote all to themselves. Its very unfair, anti-democratic, yet not against the law. According to CNN right now, Hillary Clinton has 166 super delegates committed to her, more than twice her nearest competitor, Obama. Bill Clinton
himself is a super delegate.

In a similar manner, at the local level in Nevada the Democratic Party establishment weighted the newly created casino caucuses to help the establishment nominee, in this case Clinton, win. Unfortunately for
her this backfired when the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama. The establishment quickly filed suit through their proxy the teachers union. Bill Clinton has spoken out against the casino caucuses as
being unfair. I agree. It is very unfair, anti-democratic, but it is not against the law.

I would love to ask the Clintons, "Now that you know super delegates aren't fair just like the casino caucuses, will Bill give up his super delegate vote?" or will both of you remain firmly entrenched in the
establishment, playing politics, business as usual, making money, not for you or me, but for the establishment.

This is a race between the establishment Clintons and the candidates for change Obama and Edwards. Which do you want?

Yesterday, Bill Clinton said that Hillary Clinton is the Insurgent and Obama represents the Establishment. Yes, he actually said that yesterday. Do you think the Clintons are the Insurgents in this presidential election or part of the established Democratic Party? I suspect that the Clintons are part of the establishment.

The establishment at large, including the mass media, wants to see a Clinton versus McCain presidential election. The reason is that both of these candidates are part of the establishment as well. This means
business as usual, the business of making money, not for you or me, but for themselves.

The establishment has been trying influence these elections on many levels, not just through the media.

The Democratic Party on a national level has super delegates consisting of high level Democrats who are part of the Democratic Party establishment who get an entire delegate vote all to themselves. Its very unfair, anti-democratic, yet not against the law. According to CNN right now, Hillary Clinton has 166 super delegates committed to her, more than twice her nearest competitor, Obama. Bill Clinton
himself is a super delegate.

In a similar manner, at the local level in Nevada the Democratic Party establishment weighted the newly created casino caucuses to help the establishment nominee, in this case Clinton, win. Unfortunately for
her this backfired when the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama. The establishment quickly filed suit through their proxy the teachers union. Bill Clinton has spoken out against the casino caucuses as
being unfair. I agree. It is very unfair, anti-democratic, but it is not against the law.

I would love to ask the Clintons, "Now that you know super delegates aren't fair just like the casino caucuses, will Bill give up his super delegate vote?" or will both of you remain firmly entrenched in the
establishment, playing politics, business as usual, making money, not for you or me, but for the establishment.

This is a race between the establishment Clintons and the candidates for change Obama and Edwards. Which do you want?

Clever, you should come away from this article wanting to vote for Clinton.

Obama and Edwards care too.

I actually think Obama and Edwards care far more than Clinton. If you want to know where a candidate stands on issues that are important to you, go to their web site and see!! Don't listen to a subtle endorsement from a carefully selected article by a biased newspaper or anyone else. Its your choice, be smart, look at each candidates site and make your own choice.

I don't even have to read this to know its biased. The repetitive order of discussion Clinton, Edwards, Obama purposefully diminishes Obama so I know this is a pro-Clinton article. This is consistent with most of the Sun's articles. Always look for multiple sources of information before making a conclusion. All mainstream sources have a bias that must be recognized. Every candidate has a web site, if you truly want to understand where each candidate stands on each issue, take a look at their web site.

Great comments. Its not wrong whoever you pick, just pick for yourself!

Very interesting how the establishment of the FBI and a news channel are soliciting on here, gives me a queasy Big Brother feeling if you ask me. Unions suck in that they don't always represent the interests of the people within them. The leaders make decisions without asking their members. Union leaders take advantage of weak people, and ardent members use heavy peer pressure, and in this case illegal tactics. Its nothing new, its called politics. I'm in a union and don't consider the union's endorsement at all when voting. My union supports Hillary, but they never asked me. Not that I care what they say, I'm voting for who I want, in this case Obama. Its not wrong whoever you pick, just pick for yourself.

Mainstream media wants to see Clinton versus McCain. They continue to ignore local polls which show that Obama is in a tight race in Nevada and ahead in South Carolina. They continue to report on gender and race as pivotal issues. This is similar to the Bush war strategy, "Support our Troops". If your American you'll support our troops and the war. This logic doesn't hold up. In these presidential elections it does not hold up either. Whether a candidate is a woman or a half black man does not determine the impact that they will have on your life or tell you what direction they want to take the country in on individual issues. Just look at Condoleeza Rice, a black woman in the Bush Administration who parrots out the party line for Bush.

Anyway, the media continues to be biased towards "establishment" candidates, candidates that are entrenched in the system so that it will be business as usual. The business is money, not for you or me, but for them.

Politicians crave power and that power must be balanced with idealism. When a politician loses all idealism they become corrupt taking money and increasing their personal power dramatically. In this Democratic race, I'm not aware of any of the candidates being this bad. However Clinton's record is more substantially mired in controversy, ranging from turning $1000 into $100000 in cattle futures, to Whitewater, to being found guilty of lying while she was at the White House, to large earmarks for private developers who then turned around and financed and campaigned for her, to falsely attacking Obama as a pro-life candidate for voting "present" in New Hampshire. There's even a movie the Republican are set to release. http://www.hillarythemovie.com/

Obama has ties to Wall Street and Chicago politics so he may not be clean either. He has proposed reform though and refuses to earmark funds for private developments. He certainly initially did nothing to try to remove the race card early on when the controversy regarding Clintons comments on MLK were aired. It appeared she was just trying to emphasis her ability to get dreams realized and inadvertently diminished MLK a bit. I don't know about Edwards, he's to far left to win so haven't researched him.

I know any of the candidates will be a huge step forward from the Bush Administration. I hope everyone can look at each Democratic candidate on the issues that are important to them in an intelligent manner (meaning excluding race and gender) and make up their own minds. How wonderful for Nevada to have such an important place in history!!