My nominee decision:

Senator Barack Obama.

For several reasons, but two dominate:

First and perhaps foremost, Senator Hillary Clinton's vote to empower President Bush to invade Iraq.

Understanding who Saddam Hussein was - his revulsion of al qeda and all Islamic militants, the failure of reputable researchers to find *any* material evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the long desired acquisition of Iraqi oil by American oil interests and George Bush, and the desire to fatten the pocketbook of Dick Cheney's employer Halliburton - giving the multinational corporation the bidless contract to rebuild the destroyed invaded nation for billions of American tax dollars and many more billions borrowed from other nations like China and India, not to mention the US National Intelligence Estimate advising against it -- it seems to me that any informed representative or senator would have voted against it.

In fact many did, including Obama. Clinton admitted not reading the NIE report, which would have, in my opinion, chilled anyone's desire to allow any military action in Iraq.

Second, it's been widely reported just in the past two days that part - if not the majority - of the reason Clinton's campaign has run into trouble is because she hired people based more on their loyalty to her than clear, cold qualifications.

We have lived for nearly eight years with a president who values loyalty more than qualifications and the result has not only been a shockingly substandard and corrupt administration, but a government whose wheels have come off all three branches of government - executive, judicial and legislative - and needlessly cost countless lives in an illegal war and natural catastrophies such as Katrina, whose destruction is *still* not rectified despite President Bush's shameful broken promise that the federal government would give them appropriate and proper assistance following the devastation.

To be fair - unlike George Bush, Hillary Clinton appears to learn lessons from her mistakes, which is great and will ultimately make her a fine leader. But as someone pointed out awhile back, the decisions she made are too costly to have a "do over" or take time to learn and then only after her campaign suffered so greatly.

Barack Obama did not vote to empower George Bush, and he has been consistently meeting with individuals throughout his campaign to surround himself with qualified, topnotch personnel if and when he is nominated to be the Democrat's nominee for the presidency, as well as if he is elected President of the United States.

Having powerhouses like Oprah Winfrey support him does not mean these people passively give him the nod. He does not surround himself with "yes" people or any sycophants who are there to massage his ego. They are there to make him a better person and leader.

Obama is by no means perfect. But, in my opinion, he has put himself on a track and in the company of those who will make sure he does not sell out or have any other goal than to serve the best interests of American citizens.

Just my two cents, please adjust for inflation.

Unmentioned winners & losers in Iowa

Winners: us.

The US.

The United States of America.

92% white, rural, middle class, mostly evangelical, voters turned out en masse for the Democrat/progressive candidates, giving the majority of their votes to a black candidate promising change - Barack Obama. Promising a rebuke and elimination of the Rove-Bush-Cheney dynasty and all it has stood for and wrought on this nation for the past seven years.

It was as if Iowa voters said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice? You are outta here!"

Losers: Corporate media, FOX news and others who covered the campaign as politics and issues as usual.

They barely mentioned John Edwards, but he still came in second place, beating Hillary Clinton. According to "mainstream media," the fight for the presidential candidate nominee is just a battle between Hillary and Barack. According to "mainstream media," especially FOX, Republicans have much stronger support than they actually do.

Voters clearly made their way to alternative sources of information to educate themselves about the candidates and issues rather than commerical media because they made their choices based on what they researched and knew and interviewed or whom they saw debate, rather than what they were told by formerly reliable sources. This is probably a reflection of the high turnout of younger voters participating in the process.

Knowing it was one of the few times he would have access to national media, John Edwards used his TV-aired Iowa voters' response speech time to elucidate why he is running and the people for whom he wants to fight and change "business as usual."

Clinton's speech was both generous and conciliatory, showing her geniality in the face of a shocking defeat. Unlike Edwards and Obama, however, her speech was partisan, emphasizing her assurance that the next president will be a Democrat and that the nation will be run by Democrats by the end of the year.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a genial, personable, affable and articulate candidate won the Republican straw vote in Iowa - upsetting the politics as usual multi-millionaire former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. His speech was conciliatory, positive and inclusive - making change and unity the key issues.

Huckabee is a fundamentalist Christian, a former Baptist minister who does not believe in evolution and certain science, but does believe the Bible is literally the truth.

The message was clear: Iowa voters want significant change from the Rove-Bush-Cheney policies and mentality. Unfortunately, coming in to change the mess they've made of our economy, military, foreign policies, neglected infrastructure, health and domestic issues will be a herculean and overwhelming task by whoever takes residence next at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Meanwhile, FOX and right-wing radio talk stations have had their notice - When you don't tell the truth but care only about spinning everything to serve your biases, people will stop believing you (when they may have years ago) and will in fact seek out other, more trustworthy information sources.

Progressive radio stations are attempting to get the truth out; the moment they slip into the self-serving ego trip taken by so many right wing radio chat show hosts? They too, will lose their credibility.

We'll have to remind them of that if they make that fatal mistake.

Meanwhile - another win has been gained by independent voters nation-wide. Watch for New York City Michael Bloomberg to step in as an independent candidate if the candidates don't specifically outline how they will put the country back on track to serve the national interest - not the partisan, personal, financial or special interests - just one byproduct of the Rove-Bush-Cheney dynasty.

So much to say, so little time...

Bloody hell.

When I have so much to say, my time is too limited to share all the thoughts, on-goings and good news going on here.

One thing I will say about understanding the state of a US in disarray: watch Lou Dobbs on CNN, and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.

I knew Lou way back when. He worked at a Seattle TV station (I worked on the radio side) and he was regarded by my little circle as a pompous, knee-jerk conservative, sexist guy. If you asked me, "Does he think for himself?" My impression was no.

We knew of his great ambitions but were frankly surprised when he got his CNN gig. He came with his talking points, however, and stuck with them.

So, what happened that I recommend him now?

One thing that becomes clear to me: he became a man who chooses to think for himself. He is apparently a man who wants to learn, to dig, to know the truth even if it flies in the face of what he's said before, enough to grow as a person and as a media representative for all viewers, not the few who hold the purse strings of the lobbyists, political parties, corporate powers that be or advertisers.

Mind you, I don't agree with everything Lou says or does any more than I agree with everything Keith says or does.

But I do think he would be willing to learn if he finds he's on the wrong track. He's done it before. Likewise, Keith strikes me as someone who's more interested in the truth than in being "right." Or left.

Keep giving 'em hell, Lou, and looking out for all American citizens who feel so helpless and far away from any sense of power - especially since even the integrity of the vote is questioned since voting systems cannot be verified without an all-important but missing paper trail.

Keith Olbermann, has a terrific sports background, so I believe he sees politics more the way you and I do because he didn't get broken in to the national journalistic community through the typical channels: start small, know and socialize with the politicians about whom you report as you climb up the food chain, cut a few quid pro quo deals to get a scoop, and the list goes on.

The system has developed into one in which if you want to report on someone significant, if you want access to him or her, you have to toe the line or else they'll slam the door. The key is not to take no for an answer and not to get enmeshed with anyone to the point they owe you anything or you owe them anything.

The truth is the truth. An opinion is an opinion. I'm not threatened by either, but a whole lot of people are, and for a journalist to be threatened by either is dangerous.

Recently, a GQ Magazine article on Hillary Clinton was killed - apparently it had some pretty critical points to make about her as well as laudatory comments (the reporter said it was very balanced) - in order to secure a media seat on a plane traveling with former President Bill Clinton to Africa to show all the work being done there by him to help not only that nation, but others.

Part of the problem is that too many people are addled by a barrage of propaganda and spun data that the truth is very difficult to find, report or discern.

The biggest telltale sign of a poor, misleading report is one that simply quotes someone as fact, then quote someone else who disagrees with what was said. Neither is a fact, and in fact when especially someone from the Bush administration says something there is at least a 50-50 chance what they are saying is an outright lie.

For whatever reason, the President, thinking himself a king, not in an elected position; the Vice-President and other high level administrative appointees have no qualms about lying to make you do what they want you to do, believe what they want you to believe.

An unquestioning, unchallenging media provided the gateway to their hubris. To the point they actually convinced themselves they would never be caught in their lies; from there, they honestly think that no one would believe they would tell a lie.

They're wrong.

Some media have managed to get a spinal transplant. But too few to stop the partisan squabbling that may ultimately be the undoing of a genuinely great nation.

"Hate" speech

People who indulge in hate speech apparently feel they must to camouflage the lack of credible information or evidence to make their point - not to mention their logic is MIA.

They try to get us all wound up, irate and generally pissed off at someone rather than inform or empower us.

They also indulge in a lot of nasty name-calling, trying to incite us to hate whom they hate.

I've only listened to Rush Limbaugh once - and that was enough. He called - at the time - First Lady Hillary Clinton all sorts of hideously disrespectful, scathing, needlessly mean names. I'd never heard a First Lady ever called such reprehensible names, and he gave not even one sound reason for his personal attack.

I had a feeling his listeners who were addled by his emotional manipulation probably felt by the end of his tirade they hated her, too.

I'm always suspicious of people who want to - or try to - influence me to hate people. Why would they? Why should I waste any of my life's time hating? I don't want to live that way, and I guess I believe there's always something I can do about something that makes me angry.

I think people who hate feel powerless. And take their bitterness over feeling powerless out on others.

I understand how information can provoke anger, espeically if I feel helpless to do anything about what I'm hearing. It can also move me to want to take action or seek more information so I can figure out something to stop feeling helpless about whatever is upsetting me.

That's why I include so many links here - so you can find more facts for yourself, do your own research, make up your own mind and take action if you're moved to do something.

I think in many cases truth is in the mind of the beholder, but when people choose to lie and manipulate over and over in order to wield power and mold opinion based on an ideology, false promises and outright lies, it becomes a great concern for me.

Especially when they lie so cavalierly, as if no one will ever hold them accountable for their actions as they exploit innocent people and finagle the "system." These folks generally believe they are above the law - and tend to get away with a lot for a long time until karma - and their own hubris catch up with them.

Making a game of toying with the minds, hearts and lives of others is a symptom of such extraordinary dysfunctional, controlling personalities.

Unfortunately, those who accept what those ill-willed manipulaters say at face value are later horrified they ever believed them to begin with. All because they believed people who did not deserve their trust.

And those who act as henchmen for those haters are usually the very people who end up bitter and angry when the truth comes out and they are exposed and remembered for the liars and criminals they really are.

There will always be some who want to walk in lock step with those who foment hatred for any reason, be it bigotry, political gain, money, profit, power, control, or some gain that is not earned but stolen.

Those who do that work from a basis of fear. They are frightened little people, terrified someone will discover who they really are inside - and what motivates them.

They are frequently blinded by some sort of greed - be it fame, money, power, an ideology. They snort and carry on, usually loudly, bullying others to distract anyone from getting personal or close enough to discover who they really are. Scared. Pathetic. Sad.

I'd feel badly for them if they weren't so incredibly destructive - whether they're the out of control temperamental bosses or the shock jocks who need to dominate others to feel powerful.

History is full of them - and all it takes to stop them is someone standing up to them.

Asking them why they yell.

Why they have the need to hurt and hate.

Senator Joseph McCarthy is a good example. A drinking alcoholic throughout his years in congress, he died hopelessly alcoholic after wrecking havoc in the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocent Americans because he had the innate need to feel powerful by inciting fear and hatred instead of seeking truth and justice.

Some history re-writers and politcal manipulaters trying to create hate have actually "found the light" - by being exposed or because they found they could not live with themselves and written books in which they confessed their illegal or (very) dirty politics.

In the end, it is perhaps not so much the hate monger but the stander-by who allows these campaigns to get out of hand.

Martin Luther King Jr. said that it would not be the enemies who foster hatred we remember with regret, but all those who stood at the sidelines in the presence of injustice and did nothing.